' '	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
I NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
AIC	Jf lllf l

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X	RECORD  REVIEW

."tlA'1E OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

...

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x

-··----- ··----- ··----- ··-----·

I SSL ES

A94.05 A94.49

INDEX NUMBER	A49.00

I  3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TTME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDrNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARl."lG DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Oct 2004	FD-2004-00174

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.

-------------	--------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------- ·

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  CO[;NCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WJJl;G, 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 ]', t:l\'1BER

FD-2004-00174	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

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 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 it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance after twice failing his Career Development Course (CDC) End of Course exam.  Applicant notes that his second failure was only by one percentage point, and also that the set of CDCs which he had been studying had been rendered obsolete.  While the record substantiates these points, it is also clear that the chain of command took them into consideration at the time of the discharge.  The commander's initial plan after member's second failure was to request a retention waiver after allowing a period of time for member to certify in knowledge of the material, and demonstrate a grasp of the fundamentals of the career field.  During that process, the commander stated member did not show improvement in his duty performance or job knowledge.  His supervisor and flight commander did not have confidence in his ability to master the technical aspects of the material.  They were also "continually disappointed by his lackadaisical approach to his duties" as was evidenced by two instances of being late for work after his second test failure.  Based on "his current attitude and behavior toward his duties" the commander felt there was "no alternative to discharging him" from the Air Force.  The DRB opined that through the unit's extensive supportive actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to succeed in his
career field but failed to do so.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on
October 16, 2000) that he understood he must complete 36 months service to receive future educational entitlements, and that the funds he contributed could not be refunded.  Applicant only served about 32 months on active duty, thus he was not eligible for the benefits.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that warrants an upgrade.

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