AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC

RECORD REVIEW

'lfl_f-l4: t fJl .r; NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZA TlON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

------ ....----- ....----- ....----- .... ---------------+----+-----+------i----+	1
x x x x

ISSUES

A94.02

INDEX NUMBER

A67.05

x

1	ORDER APPOINHNG 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

02 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00153

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

.

---------------------------------------     .1'.J...........................................'
l	·	1

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY  OF TUE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMJ\-IAND 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-2004-00153	

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

The applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) on 2 November 2004 with counsel at Andrews AFB MD.  The following witness testified on the applicant's behalf:

Ms. CH, the applicant's mother.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Hand Drawn Map of the Osan Enlisted Club
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief, the discharge is upgraded to honorable.
ISSUE:

Issue I. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh (inequitable).  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, with a suspended punishment of reduction in rank, subsequent vacation of the suspension for later misconduct and another Article  15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Record oflndividual Counseling. The ORB opined that due to the particular facts of this case, the discharge characterization was inequitable.  The evidence presented to the Board indicated the initial Article  15 action was based upon a series of unfortunate events  and was not characteristic of the applicant's normal behavior.  The evidence before the Board further indicated that the subsequent nonjudicial punishment  actions were triggered by misunderstandings and miscommunication  between the chain of command and the applicant.  The ORB took note of the applicant's prior duty performance as documented by his performance reports,

Issue 2. Applicant states that his discharge was improper. His failure in his Career Development Course was listed as a reason for his discharge for misconduct, but there was no showing in the case file that his failure in the course was caused by misconduct. The legal review did not note this defect. It appears the separation authority took his action as if the CDC failure were misconduct.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation  in that the applicant's CDC failure was listed as misconduct when there was no evidence in the file to support it's inclusion as misconduct and no advice to disregard it as a basis for discharge in the legal review.  Although the applicant may still have been discharged without inclusion of the failures and that although the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the discharge characterization was inequitable because it was based upon a short period of time during the enlistment when there appear to have been numerous misunderstandings and unfortunate events.  In the applicant's particular case, it appeared to the ORB that the quality of the member's service as reflected in the military record, including personal conduct, performance of duty, and the reason for separation generally met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.

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 service characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief