AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEi.
YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR 0RGANl7.ATION

Al>DllliSS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL ··---·-.--·	I

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

von:OF THE BOARD
UOTHC

OTHER	DE
x	·
\,

x x x x

HEARING DATE
03-03-11

INDEX NUMBER
A67.30

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0358

EXHIBITS SUBl\llITED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTlFICA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXlll131TS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAl.E. REM.ARJ(S
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.

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

DATE: 03-03-11

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0358	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reen1istment code.

The app1icant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board  but  declined  to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment  code are 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 minor discipJinary infractions. He had an Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand, and three Records of Individual CounseHng. He had two Enlisted Performance Reports, one rated an overa11 "3" and the other rated an overall referral "I." His misconduct inc1uded seven instances of failure to go or being late to work, and wrongfully using his unit recaH roster to distribute phone numbers without the members' permission. The records also reflect member was diagnosed  with  a  generalized anxiety disorder in Ju]y 2001, which eventuaHy led to his permanent decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and  submitted a statement requesting sufficient retention to earn his GJ. Bill education benefits, or in the alternative an honorable discharge. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits on applicant, this is not a matter of equity or propriety  that warrants an upgrade. Additiona 1ly, the Board noted member was given many opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them because his misconduct was disruptive to the unit. The board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade, and no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board conc1udes 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 upt:',Tade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief