AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
I p	a	•:
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TIOl'IO OF COUNSEi.

MEMBER SITTING
................. .............. .............. .............. .............

HON	GEN

X+

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x
x

X+

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

X+

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 APPERANCE

Hli:ARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER ,
15 Jan 2004	FD-2002-0361

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY  TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
,..._.......	...... :;:;:;e:::................................................................................ J	-	...............:;;;:i......... .

TO;

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONN"EL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COM:\1A D DR, EE Wll'i"G, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-70(12

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUJ\IBER

FD-2002-0361	

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 to exercise this right.

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nr that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would  justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties and for making an official false statement.  Additionally, he received four Letters of Reprimand  and one Record oflndividual Counseling for failure to go, destruction of his squadron hat, failure to obey a lawful order twice, and willfully disobeying a direct order.  The Board did not condone the applicants misconduct; however, the member had a documented history of JP-8 fuel sensitivity and his doctor was contemplating an MEB.  The applicant should have been afforded the opportunity to cross train or undergo an MEB.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

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

Attachment: Examiner's Brief