AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

;.  NAME OF' SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No

N AM;t-:;OOF;COUN SE.L AND OR ORGANl7ATI0N	ADl.lRESS AND QR ORGANlZA TION OF COUNSEL

 	x 	
M EMBER SITTING

X+ X+ X+
X+ X+
A67.10

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
08 Oct 2003	FD-2003-00314

R OF NOTIFICATION
1    4		BRIEF OF PERSON NEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEAJlANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal  appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

I
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORJTY
I

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNt: L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
lJ COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD t"LOOR 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-2003-00314	

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

The  applicant  was  offered  a personal  appearance  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  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 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 applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

Issue.  Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand and an Article 15. His misconduct included one incident of underage drinking, failure to out-process when required for a reassignment, and failure to go to an assigned detail.  These three incidents all occurred within a 2month period.  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. Specifically, the Board found the characterization was too harsh.

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 conc1udes 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