AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

· 11 1 1 1	Ill

TYPE HON

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
·'-----------------------------

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A49.00

INDEX NUMBER

A93.03 A93.09 A94.05

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DJSCHAROE
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

11 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00532

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.

------------------------------------	--------------	--------------------------------------    ·'

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00532	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals 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: Change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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 requests that the reason (unsatisfactory performance) for his discharge be changed. Applicant concludes that he should not be labeled with "unsatisfactory performance."  The DRB opined that the reason for discharge was in fact unsatisfactory performance, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3, failure to progress in on-the-job training (OJT).  This reason includes individuals who fail to upgrade in a timely manner those who twice failed to pass their Career Development Course (CDC) exam.  Changing the reason for discharge would only be appropriate when it would serve the best interests of the Air Force and the discharge for cause is not warranted.  The Board concluded the reason for the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in view of his administrative demotion for the same reasons.  The records indicated the applicant was properly notified of and acknowledged the reason for his discharge.  He was also entitled to have his case heard by an administrative discharge board but waived that right conditioned on receipt of an honorable discharge.  That request was granted.  Therefore this issue is without merit.

Issue 3. Applicant infers that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters ofrecommendation and other accomplishments. However, applicant's inability to pass his CDC exams and be upgraded in his career field offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.
Thus, the Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reason that was its basis.

Issue 4 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 constitute an inequity or impropriety in his discharge that would suggest a basis for changing the discharge.

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