AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION 01'COUNSEL

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

A94.53

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

27 Feb 2014

FD-2013-00795

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 application to the AFBCMR.

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

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF mEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR,EE WING, )RD Fl.OOR ANDREWS AFB,MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00795	

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 denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge.    The record indicates the applicant received one Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included failed to pay debts, lied to a person of authority, failed to pay for snacks from the snack bar, disregarded technical data and failed to follow proper connection procedures, failed to comply with technical order by improperly performing load and inline alignments on ALQ-131 pod, and through neglect destroyed ALQ-131 pod by overloading power supply.  The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief