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

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AlC	flZFlll I lS
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X*+

-------------------------------

X*+

x
X*+ X*+

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

A92.22	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

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

03 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00424

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUl]:I..'.-'........	TO SECRETARIAL  AUTHORITY
!<!1:!!11-t.:  !?!>  •••••••••·'·••••••••••• ::'' ••••••••••••••••• § <?HY-:m>.i: l!> :.r.  ••••••••••••••••••••,
'' .
'

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF Tin: 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-2003-00424	

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

f.: -P.P!! ant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with counsel, Mr. ---_-_-_-_-_-j
:	:, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, at Andrews AFB, MD, on February 3, 26(5, C"technical SergeantC:  :	his brother, also testified

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.
ISSUE: The applicant received a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions, and cited two issues:

Issue 1: Applicant contends his discharge was an impropriety in that, on several occasions, he asked about the consequences of accepting the discharge and was told that he would receive an honorable discharge and that he would be able to reenlist at some point in time. The records indicate the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and five Records of Individual Counseling (RIC).  The first two RICs were for
(1) reporting for duty 35 minutes late and for (2) dereliction of duty for failure to sign off a required form. The two LORs and other three RICs were for financial irresponsibility, one for issuing an insufficient funds check for $35.00 and the others for failure to pay delinquent accounts. Applicant testified that although he took full responsibility for his actions, his second child was born in April 1993 and he could not make ends meet after that on an Al C paycheck; applicant's records indicate that four of  the  five  reprimands  for financial irresponsibility occurred after April 1993.  The Board also noted that applicant's records contained no Article 15 or demotion actions and that the applicant's only EPR was an overall 5 with comments that he had been nominated three times to compete for Fuels Airman of the Quarter. Although there is no documentary evidence to support member's claims of being misled as to the type and consequences of the discharge he would receive, the Board agreed that a general discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.

Issue 2:  Applicant contends his post service activities should be taken into consideration.  The DRB concurred and was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job as a design engineer. Testimony revealed that he has logged numerous hours of volunteer service to his church and as a girls softball league coordinator, as well as being involved with inner-city team building, assisting the homeless, and sponsoring a child in Brazil.

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