AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AlC

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRl:SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

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

HON	GEN
x x

x

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x

ISSUES

A67.10

INDEX NUJ\'mER

A94.06

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

24 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00542

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

----	·······--	------ : ····	1

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE D1SCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, JRD FWOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20761 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00542	

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: The Board grants the requested relief.
ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling. The DRB opined that the Article 15 was too harsh in that the applicant was on approved leave and could not help that the aircraft was stuck in Ramstein. The Board did not condone the other misconduct that the applicant had, i.e. being late for work and for financial irresponsibility, however, characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be harsh and should be changed to honorable.

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 under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. The reason and authority for discharge and the RE Code will not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief