AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUE.S

A94.05

INDEXNt!MBER

A67.10

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OFNOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITI'ED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARJNG

HEAR.INC DATE	CASE Nt!MBtR

--

-----

-·

-

-·---·-· - - -	-  .	-- - - -	--- -	- --· ------ - ---- -- -	- -  .	-·  ------
i\1:"ll<.;\'"'-' .-.-- -	-	.	.	-  ...  -	.,   -	.	"' " .;,....,:(..). .. .i. "·- '
)S,l. ,.  ...   ...  .. ... ,	.	•	-·	...    .. , •    -  • .{_•J·.·.
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.

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

SECRETARY OFnnt A.JR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVllW BOARD lSlSCOMMAND DR. EE WlNC, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB,MD 2t762-7MI

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00804	

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

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant's record of service included one Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling and one Record of Counseling. The misconduct included failed to go to duty on time; with intent to deceive, made false official statement to NCO; accomplice to breaking and entering of another airmen's dorm room and lack of integrity; failed to obey order of NCO(multiple times); lost restricted area badge and failed to report loss within 48 hours; argued with NCO twice; failed to complete inventory as required; used disrespectful language to NCO; failed to properly engage brake on MHU-110 trailer; disrespect towards NCO; failed to perform duties in timely and proficient manner and failed to meet standards.

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He stated that it does not accurately reflect his military service. Member did not see his actions as being disrespectful or argumentative. Member also stated a General discharge does not show his strong work ethics, technical knowledge and ability to get the job done. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief