AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LASI', FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANll.ATION OFCOVNS.EL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X*+

X*+
X*+ X*+

ISSUES

AOl.01

INDEX NUMBER

A06.00

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 SUBMITIED ATTIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASENUMBER

27 Feb 2014	FD-2014-00048

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.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+RE Code

/'

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARV OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535COMMAND DR.EE WING,JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00048	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code.

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 requests to change the reason and authority for discharge and to change the reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE:   Applicant received an Honorable discharge for an Erroneous Enlistment

Applicant contends discharge was improper because he did not have a pre-existing chronic knee pain before entering the Air Force.  The record indicated that on 28 February 2012 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic knee pain.  The evaluation report indicated that the condition existed prior to military service and  the applicant did not request a waiver.  Additionally, on 28 February 2012, the applicant signed a Release From Responsibility For Discharge form.  The form states	e applicant released himself from Wilford Hall
Ambulatory Surgical Center against the advice of the attending physician and released the Government from all responsibility.  Furthermore, the applicant stated he sustained the injury prior to military service and that it interfered with his Basic Military Training.  Based on the information contained in the records, the Board found the applicant's contention to have no merit.  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