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

AlC

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW

:;0,::{,t:	s:r>  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN
x x x x x

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

1	ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD

A93. 10

A67. 10

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

20 Aug 2003	FD-2003-00225

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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
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

FD-2003-00225	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

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 Board finds that neither the evidence of record or 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 applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go and six Letters of Reprimand for a domestic disturbance, dereliction of duty, failing to properly secure his area badge, being late for work, and for failure to go.  The Board realized the predicament the applicant was in when his then wife left him with a six-month-old baby. Although he tried to make a go of it between his military duties and being a parent, he could not balance the two.  The Board opined that the characterization of the applicant's discharge should be changed to Honorable.

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 the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. The applicant's characterization  and  reason  for discharge should be changed to Honorable, Secretarial Authority under the  provisions  of Title  10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief