AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
r
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

A IC	._
X	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN
x x x x

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x

ISSUES

AOl.04 AOl.18 AOl.32 AOl.56

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

l	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

08 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00502

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

:····----- - - - - ----	- ----)_ _ _ _ _ _L!_ _ _ _ _ £4 _ _ /}__ _ ,.,_   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...1! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,	I

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535COJl.IMAND 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 NUl\1BER

FD-2003-00502	

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

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:   The Board grants partial relief; the discharge is upgraded to honorable.
Change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied. The Board finds that the evidence of record substantiates an impropriety that justifies a change of discharge.
Applicant received a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance, failure to progress in on-the-job training, after twice failing his Career Development Course (CDC) End of Course exam. Additionally, the records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and five Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  His infractions included three incidents of being late for work, unauthorized body piercing, numerous traffic violations, and assaulting another military member.  At the time of the discharge applicant's commander notified him that he was being recommended for an honorable discharge based only on his CDC failures.  The letter of notification failed to reference the other derogatory information in member's records, and failed to list those documents as attachments to the notification.  Apparently in view of his expectation of receiving
an honorable discharge as recommended, and without being cognizant that the decision authority would have access to the other derogatory records, the member waived his right to consult counsel or submit statements  in his own behalf   The decision authority was however provided information about the member's misconduct, and the legal review suggested that member should receive a general discharge, vice honorable, in view of member's extensive record of misconduct.  The decision authority acted on that recommendation and directed member be given a general discharge, without the benefit of member being aware the
derogatory information had been considered.  This was improper and was a hannful error to applicant's detriment.  Member was not given full due process of knowing what information would be considered for his characterization of service, or the opportunity to respond to it.

The DRB noted however that the reason for discharge was unsatisfactory performance in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3, failure to progress in on-the-job training.  This reason includes individuals who fail to upgrade in a timely manner or as is in this case, failed to pass the Career Development Course (CDC) exam twice.  The Board concluded therefore that the reason and authority for the discharge received by the applicant, as well as the reenlistment code, were appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

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.  The applicant's characterization of discharge should
be changed to honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief