AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
HTIAL)

TYPE GEN

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

A94.05 A93.21 A93.09

Il'\.u ....... •- ¥

..-.. .'.90

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Oct 2005	FD-2004-00152

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I50-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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-2004-00152		

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB), without counse Andrews AFB on 20 Oct 2005. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: M applicant's mother.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit # 5: Four Character reference letters

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 contends discharge was inequitable because he was denied his Personnel Information File and the fact that he requested an extension due to his medical profile. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s for failure to go, three Letters of Reprimand for being late for duty, and one Letter of Counseling for dereliction of duty. Applicant's first issue is without merit. The applicant had received copies of the Letters of Counseling/Reprimand, and copies of the Article 15s, which spelled out exactly what the misconduct was for. Also in the Commander's Notification Memorandum, paragraph 2 specifically spells out the reasons for the discharge and that same Notification Memorandum, in paragraph 5, informs the applicant that he has three duty days to respond unless he requests and receives an extension for good cause. The Commander did not find the applicant's request fit this requirement and denied the extension. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

ISSUES 2, 3, and 6 all relate to the applicants medical problems and will be answered together. Applicant states that his discharge was inequitable due to his medical profile and the medications he was taken were not considered. These issues are without merit. The DRB noticed that the applicant was on a medical  profile twice. Once in October 2001 for 30 days, and again in December 2001 until Jan 2002 for another 30 days. These problems did not keep the applicant from going to work. He was on light duty but was still
·	to work and to report o	·		

ISSUE 4: Applicant states the discharge was inequitable due to being singled out among others who were in the wrong. This issue is without merit. You cannot compare punishment that is doled out to one person against another. The applicant had prior misconduct and was dealt with more severely than the individual he was with, who most likely did not have prior incidents of misconduct.

ISSUE 5: Applicant believes his discharge was inequitable because he called into his shop and notified them that he was going to be late. This issue is also without merit. In his 15 Jan 04 response to his
notification of proposed administrative discharge, he stated that there were family issues going on at the time and he forgot about the appointment due to those issues being on his mind. However, when the applicant submitted this application for upgrade, he states that he went to the airport to pick u  another airman before		

his shift was to start and encountered heavy traffic on his return. Then, in another memorandum, he states that he was working the early morning shift and was not called back to his shop and briefed that he had an appointment.  Although the appointment was scheduled a month in advance.

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