AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

I I 1m1111
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC	11 , 1 rmn
RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x * x * x* x*
x*

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

ISSUES

A13.00

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

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
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

BEARING  DATE

CASE NUMBER

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.
*Change reason and authority to secretarial authority.

SIGNATURE OF RECORDER

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-2003-00245	

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

The applicant appearecJtbefore the Dischar e Review Board (DRB) at Andrews AFB, MD, on November 13, 2003, and was	f the Am · L ! Al • sent as witnesses for the applicant wer		a former co-worker.

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  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an
inequity or 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 based primarily on his unsatisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program (WMP), which, in and of itself, cannot be used as the basis for a pattern of misconduct. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, six  Letters  of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling; however, all but one of these (a LOR for dereliction of duty in that he, as barracks bay chief, failed to post a bay orderly schedule) occurred during the six month period after the applicant was returned from Airman Leadership School for reporting overweight and his subsequent discharge for misconduct. Additionally, all but two of these (one for failure to obey a lawful order and one for being intoxicated) were for WMP related incidents. Applicant stated that his unit did not weigh him prior to his departure for Airman Leadership School and that the school did not do a body fat measurement. He further stated that there was a marked change in his unit's attitude towards him after his return, that he was a marked man and every little event was documented. The Board took note that in only one of the LORs/LOCs given to the applicant during this six month period was he given the opportunity to offer a formal rebuttal. The applicant took full responsibility for his actions and stated that he just basically gave up once his unit's attitude changed towards him. Since his separation, he has become involved in his community and has done quite well in the private sector, rising to the rank of Lieutenant in his civilian job. 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, and change of reason for 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 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 and Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief