AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

Y£S	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COONSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x x x x
x

GEN	UOTHC

011-IER

DENY

A67.10
A49.00	1 ORDER APPOINTING TllE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LE1TER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSE L'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSON AL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING or PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

llf.ARINC DATE

CASE NUMBER

13 Mar 2014	FD-2013-00785

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY Of Tm:AIR FORCE P(KSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE l>ISCHARCt REVIEW BOARD
l!\JSCOMMAND OR. tE WINC.JRO t'LOOR ANDREWSAFB.MO 217'2-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00785	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:   The Board grants the requested relief.

ISSUE:	Applicant received a General discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress and Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because he was not given a fair chance to progress.  The records indicated the applicant failed to obtain a passing score on his career development course (CDC) on 16 May 2002 and then again on 6 August 2002.  Additionally, he received four Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included failed to comply with lawful order to clean finger nails, failed to go to duty on time (3x), reported to duty in dirty uniform,  and failed to maintain government quarters by not cutting the grass (2x).  After a complete and thorough review of the records the Board found that was applicant was given a fair chance to progress.  However, determined that based on the very minor nature of his misconduct a General service characterization was too harsh.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However,  in view  of the  foregoing  findings,  the Board  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of  applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief