AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

-

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X  RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL ANl> OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

INl>EX NUMBER
A67.10	1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

IIEARING DATE
03-01-10

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0203

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO nm BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMIITED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MO 20762·7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0203	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for his discharge.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.
The attached brief contains avai'lable pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for both minor disciplinary infractions and unsatisfactory performance. He had at least one verbal counseling, three Letters of Counseling, one Letter of Reprimand, and an Article
15. There were also eight other memorandums for record  regarding his misconduct, which included multiple instances of failure to go over a 7-month period, and twice failing his Career Development Course End-of-Course examination. He was both inattentive at his post as a Security Forces member, and fell asleep at his post. He had two dress and appearance violations (not in uniform when required to be), and failed two Quality control evaluations for base entry controller duties. His only Enlisted Performance Report stated he displayed a languid attitude toward his duties and required intense supervision. At the time of the discharge, applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf, requesting retention, or in the alternative, an  honorable discharge. The Discharge Review Board (DRB) noted that member was responsible for his actions of misconduct and was properly held accountable for those. He was counseled repeatedly and given numerous opportunities to conform his behavior but failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. With regard to the unsatisfactory performance, he was given numerous opportunities to improve and make satisfactory progress, but failed to do so. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief