AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
•	NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

•	Jiit•	SRA
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

'

'-------------------------------------------	x
'
'
X+
X+ X+
x
'--------------------------------------------

ISSUES

A94.06 A93.34 A94.12 A93.12

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3·	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

07 Oct 2003	FD-2003-00185

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD 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

FD-2003-00185	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and the hearing was held on October 7, 2003, at Andrews AFB MD. The applicant offered no additio:p.al evidence at the hearing.

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

FINDINGS: The Board grants in part and denies in part the requested relief. The character of the discharge will be upgraded and the reason and authority changed, but the reenlistment code will remain the same.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:

Although the applicant submitted issues for the DRB's consideration, other issues that became apparent during the course of the hearing provided the primary justification for granting the applicant's request.

Issue 1: Applicant explicitly contends that his post-service activities should be taken into consideration on the question of the propriety of his discharge. The DRB was pleased to see the applicant was doing well, that he has a good job, and that he has been able to gain control of his financial situation. This information does not provide a justification for changing the discharge characterization, but it gave the DRB a more informed perspective from which to evaluate the applicant's conduct while in the service.

Issue 2: Applicant explicitly contends that his ability to serve was impaired by  marital  and  financial problems. While he was clearly experiencing problems in this regard, he was not faced with hurdles more daunting than those faced by any other young, newly married airman. The problems in and of themselves would not provide a basis for upgrade. It is, however, the command/supervisory response to the applicant's maritaVfinancial  problems that provide the basis for the upgrade.  (See Issues 3 & 4, below).

Issue 3:  Applicant impliedly contends that his discharge was based on a personality conflict, arbitrary and capricious command/supervisory action, and command/supervisory mismanagement.   The DRB agrees.  The records indicated the applicant received five Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and three Letters of Counseling (LOC).  He did not receive any Article  15s.  The evidence indicated that the applicant's supervisor and  others in the command structure utterly failed to correctly administer the disciplinary actions.  The DRB concluded that some of the disciplinary actions were disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.  This problem was compounded by the failure of the command to indicate (in the LOR or LOC) why it was taking a particular action for misconduct that did not appear to warrant such discipline.  There was also evidence that the command virtually ignored the applicant's financial issues and did not provide adequate counseling. Even after the applicant obtained financial counseling, the command continued to ignore the applicant's progress, choosing instead to discipline him for financial mismanagement that was not his fault or did not actually occur.   Thus, the supervisory responses to the applicant's behavior were inconsistent, undirected, and almost whimsical.  There appeared also to be inadequate command oversight of the supervisory personnel.   In the end, the DRB concluded the command's capricious approach to the applicant's behavior	

deprived the applicant of the rehabilitative effect of the disciplinary actions described above and that any rehabilitation that did take place was improperly disregarded by the command.

Issue 4: Applicant impliedly contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.	As noted above, some of the actions taken against the applicant were, given the absence of explanation to the contrary, unwarranted.	At least one action appeared to be groundless. There was also no Article 15 punishment administered. Ordinarily, it is desirable for the command to resort to this rehabilitative tool before resorting to a discharge to give the member a chance to change their behavior. This step is not, however, required. Given the presumption of regularity, the command's decision not to administer such punishment will not be questioned. However, in this case, given the supervisory mismanagement and the lack of command attention, reassessment of the decision to discharge is warranted. The DRB concludes, then, that under these circumstances, the discharge was too harsh.

Even though these issues justify upgrading the discharge and changing the reason and authority, the DRB did not believe changing the reenlistment code was appropriate.  The totality of the facts and circumstances suggested to the DRB that the applicant was simply not well suited for rigors of military service.

CONCLUSIONS:	The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was, therefore, inequitable.

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 that the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. However, the reenlistment code will not be changed. The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief