AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AlC

RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

ON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

X+ X+
X+

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

F OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

05 Dec 2003	FD-2003-00293

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas

Advise applicant of the decisian of the Board.

CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF TllE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEWBOAIW
1S3S COMMAND DR, El!:. WJNQ, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EFN2)	Previous edition will be used

'AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00293	

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

The applicant appeared before the Dischar  e Review Board (DRB) at Randolph AFB, Texas, on 5 December 2003 and was represented by counsel	· f the Texas Veterans Commission.
t
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. The applicant submitted'the followin   Exhibits:
Exhibit #6, Character Letter Dr.		t. Philips College, 4 December 2003; Exhibit #7, Character lfetter	Methodist Hospital, 4 December 2003;
Exhibit #8, Character [etter, Dr.	t. Philips College, 4 December 2003. FINDINGS: The Board grants the requested relief.
The Board finds that the evidence of record and that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that justifies a change of discharge, and 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 and one Letter of Reprimand. The DRB concluded by its review of the applicant's records that his separation should have been characterized as an entry level separation. It is apparent from the applicant's records that the commander intended to initiate discharge before the applicant reached 180 days of active military service and even sent the applicant for his separation physical before the 180-day point. However, the applicant's commander did not formally notify the applicant of the commander's intent to discharge the applicant until 8 days after the applicant's 180-day point of service. In fact, the notification letter, dated 9 March 1995, states that the applicant was scheduled for a separation physical on 27 February 1995, the day he had his separation physical. Clearly, the commander's intent was to initiate separation before the member reached 180 days of service.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was improper and inequitable. The Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicanes 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 pursuant to Secretarial P;uthority under the provisions of TitleJ O, USC 1553.
Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

,t,