AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

x

x

x

x

x

x

ISSUES
AOl.14 A92.36

INDEX NUMBER
A 67.50

1

2

APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3

LETIER OF NOTIFICATION

4

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADOffiONAL EXEUBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INlTIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE
GEN

X PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AN11 OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION' OF COUNSEL

YES	NO

MEMBERS SITTING

UOTHC

OTHER

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

HEAlUNGDA'JE
091202

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0016

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington DC

The AFRDB determined the applicant's reenlistment code (RE) would be changed to 3B and that the reason for discharge should be 0Secretarial Authority 0•

The B-Oard finds the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety which justifies upgrading his discharge from general to honorable.

Advise the applicant of the decision of the Board.

SIGNA

-···

SIGNATU:RI! OF BOARD Pltl!SIDENI'

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0016	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable and changing his reenlistment code to one which permits him to re-enter the military.

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

Issue:  The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipJine, on May 4, 1999. Before being separated, the respondent' s superiors imposed three reprimands and three formal counselings.  He also received an  Enlisted Performance report with an overall rating of 3.  While the Board believed the incidents described
in the counselings and reprimands occurred, the Board did not believe that these incidents were serious enough to support a basis for separation.  In particular, the Board noted the supervisor who administered two of the counselings the respondent received described them as "minor" and indicated that the applicant      was "one of his best troops." Similarly, the Board noted the respondent was both counseled and reprimanded for being tardy on four occasions over a two and one-half year period.  While the Board does not condone the applicant's misconduct, the Board did not find them to be especially egregious.  The Board also considered the reprimands the respondent received for being late in paying two creditors.  In each case, the Board observed the respondent was in active contact with the creditors and neither debt was more than thirty days overdue.  Under these circumstances, the Board also believed this misconduct was relatively minor.  The final reprimand considered by the Board involved the respondent's breach of dormitory rules
by housing a dog in his room.  While the Board does not condone the rules violation, the applicant's misconduct was mitigated by the fact he was endeavoring to find a home for the animal in order to save it	
commander described his potential for further service to the wing commander and how he described it in a memo he gave the respondent to use in applying for civilian employment.  While the former indicated the respondent's prospects for completing a probationary period were non-existent, the latter praised the respondent's ability to learn from mistakes, get along with others, and included the commander' s assurance the respondent would be a success in whatever he chose to do.  The Board concluded this was an impropriety which adversely effected the applicant.  Based upon the foregoing, the Board concluded there were inequities and improprieties in this case which requires a change in his service characterization and re­ enlistment code.

The Board also reviewed and considered the applicant's entire service record before making a decision.	

from being euthanized.  Lastly, the Board noted the contradiction between how the respondent's