AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

" NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AIC

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

AOl.13
A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

I	ORDER APPOINTING 1'HE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBI  S SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

08 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00493

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.

• • ••••• • • • • ••••wo/lw •••td...LJ..{..'.....w••   " •••••••••• w •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,

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. :'\-ID 20702-7GOl

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

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.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUJ\.tBER

FD-2003-00493	
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: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

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.

Issue 1. Applicant received a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance.  He failed his Career Development Course End of Course exam twice and failed to weapons qualify on the M-16 and M-9 as is required in the Security Forces career field.  Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant also had documented misconduct and had received a Letter of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and a Letter of Admonishment.   His misconduct included failure to go, a verbal altercation and communicating a threat to another Air Force member, failure to obey an order, a domestic disturbance, and hostile behavior toward a Security Forces member, to include verbal threats.
Applicant had two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), one rated an overall "3" and the other a referral "2."  These EPRs disclosed member's lack of dedication and initiative and the requirement to constantly supervise him.  The DRB noted that the reason for discharge was Unsatisfactory Performance in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3.  This reason pertains to individuals who fail to upgrade in a timely manner or as is in this case, failed to pass their Career Development Course exam twice.  The Board concluded the reason for the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  The DRB further opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  Therefore, the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was also found to be appropriate.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, this does not provide a basis for upgrade.

Issue 3.  Applicant infers he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young.  The DRB noted applicant was 23 years old when discharged.  There is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was as old as the majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.

Issue 4.  The applicant inferred he was told his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months.  The DRB noted this common issue, the result of miscommunication.   While a discharge may be upgraded after 6 months, an upgrade is not automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.