AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
AlC
RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*

x

X*

X*
x

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10	1:r1::::11:1:r:11:m1nw §r!n*.mmm:1nrm:19.Mm't:1rt11n1
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER 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

HEARINGDAIE	CASE NUMBER

08 Dec 2003	FD-2003-00179

Case heard at Randolph AFB, TX.

* Secretarial Authority

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
lSJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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

FD2003-00179-A	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.	
plicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel,­
f the Texas Veterans Commission at Randolph AFB on December 8, 2003. The followil
1 its were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 6: Design of VIP table, undated
Exhibit 7: Airframe and Powerplant License, dated 22 Sep 2001

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 discharge is upgraded to Honorable.
Reason is changed to Secretarial Authority.

The Board finds that neither the evidence ofrecord nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.  However, based on the record and the testimony of the applicant, the Board finds that the applicant's character of discharge is inequitable.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because "it was too harsh".  The information provided by the applicant and contained in his records was carefully reviewed by the DRB.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15 and four Records of Individual Counseling.  The misconduct included failure to go, dereliction of duty, failing to follow established procedures, and failing to demonstrate the qualities expected of a noncommissioned  officer.  After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by the applicant and contained in the records, the Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge.

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 change ofreason for discharge to Secretarial Authority, under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief