AIR FORCE DISCHA RGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

TYPE	x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

1--c-o_u..1.N._SE_L_ _, NAME OF COllNSEL AND OR ORGAl\IZATION
) ES	No
x

ADDR£SS A1'D OR ORGANIZATION OF COlll\Sl:L

VOTE OF THE BOARD

HON
x x x

x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x

ISSll£S

A94.06

INDEX NliMBER

A67.10

,..   XBIBITS SUBMJITED TO TJIE BOAJW
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARliL
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL Fll.F COUNSEL·s RELEASE TO THE BOARD

llL\RING   DATf.	CASE NliMBER	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

02 Oct 2003	FD-2003-00028

PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

APPL!(ANTS ISSUE AND THE BOA!Ul:S DECISIONAL RATlONAL AM DISCUSS ON THE ATTACHEt> AIR.FORCE DiSCHAR      YIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard  at Wash ington, D.C.

Adv ise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal  appearance wit h/without cou nsel, and t he right to su bm i t an appl icat ion to the A FBC M R

ATE 1110312003

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

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COlii"CIL AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE W ING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition w i ll be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NllMBER

FD-2003-00028	
GENERAL:  The appl icant appeals for u pgrade of d ischarge to Honorable, and change of reason for d ischarge.

The appl icant appeared and test ified before the Discharge Rev iew Board (DRB), wit hout cou nsel , at A nd rews A FB, M D on October 2, 2003.

The fol low ing add itional exh i bits were subm itted at the heari ng: Exh i bi t 6: M i l itary pay statements (6) Jan uary - A pri l 2000
Exh i bit 7: N assau Com m u n ity Col lege enrol l ment letter, 30 Sept 03 Exh i bi t 8: Reference  letters (3)
Exh i bit 9: A ppl icant's summary of case
Exh i bi t  1 0: Copy of appl icant's req uest for early d ischarge, u ndated.

FINDINGS: The d ischarge is u pgraded  to Honora bl e, and the reason  for d ischarge is changed to Secretarial A uthori ty.  Change of the reen l istment cod e is den ied.

The Board  finds that ev idence of record and that prov ided by the appl icant substantiates an i njust ice t hat justifies upgrade of t he d ischarge.

ISSUES:  The appl icant's issues are l isted  i n the attached  brief.  The appl icant contends his d ischarge was harsh and  t hat he was pu n ished i n fash ion t hat was inconsistent wit h d isci pl inary act ions appl ied to other a irmen i n h is u n it and
that he was u nfai rl y treated and sin gled out by h is superv isory chain.  He ident ifies the circumstances surrou nd ing h is financia l  probl ems as m it igati ng factors.  He contends that the positive aspects of h is serv ice outweigh  the negat ive
and  also cites post service accom pl ish ments as reflecti ve of h is overall character.

The appl icant received 2 Articles  1 5 and a Letter of Repri mand for work i ng an off d uty job wh i le on conva lescent leave, fai l u re to pay a just debt and im properly i n itial i ng an aircraft maintenance docu ment.
The Board noted the appl icant's superior d uty performance as reflected  i n  en l isted performance reports i ncl ud ing the narrati ve com men ts i n h is final en l isted report that encom passed the period of time d u ri ng wh ich he received h is  Article  l S 's.  The appl icant's post serv ice cond uct reflects posi tively on  his character.   After rev iewing the records and  l isten ing to test imony. the Board concl uded that the appl icant's pu n ish ments were harsh and not reha bi l itative i n
natu re and that t he appl icant's d ischarge was i n t urn too harsh.  The Board opined that the m iscond uct, pa11ia l ly
m it igated by legiti mate circumstances, m in ima l ly supported d ischarge and that probation and rehabi l itation wou ld  have been  a more appropriate course of act ion for an otherw ise outstand i ng d uty performer.   A lthough  not specifically req uested, the Board  also considered  whether to u pgrade the appl icant's reen l istment code and decided to deny R E
cod e u pgrade based on the tota l ity of the case.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge  Review  Board  concl udes that the d ischarge  was consistent  with the proced u ral and substantive req u irements of the d ischarge regu lation and was with i n the discretion of the
d ischarge authori ty and that the appl icant was prov ided fu ll ad m i n istrative d ue process.   However evidence of the record  and test imony finds the d ischarge ineq u itable and serv ice deserv i ng of characterization  as honorable.

I n v iew of the foregoi n g find ings the Board further concl udes that there exists an equ itable basis for u pgrade of d ischarge, thus the appl icant's discharge shou ld be changed to Honorable, and the reason changed to Secretarial Authority.

Attachment
Exam i ner's Brief