...........

AIR FORCE DISCHA RGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAl\-1£ OF SERVIC:E l\-1EMBER (LAST, FIRST :\11DDLI: lITIAL)	GRADE	.4FS:'ll/SSA

YES	··

SRA	tlJl!!L•I·
1	I 1•1111 111  r II	..

TYPE   GEN	x	I	PERSONA L APPEARA NCE	I	RECORD   REVIEW
:-,;i¢QuitstL	N ME OF COllNSJ:L AND OR ORGA NIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR OCA N IZA TJON OF C0l1NSEl
x
I
•     1	.YA1:1'!:1'!1'.ti! 11,'!JAl. m ··. . ·	• ·

..

MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

---·---------------------------------
Ci

·-	·---
x
x

e:	-
x
"'	x
x

...&I.S-S-lT-f.-S-----------------------   -lN-D-E-X--N-U-M-BER
A94.54

----
lll:AIUNG D--' T£	CASE    1"I:MBal

A69.00

EXH!lHTS SUBJ\'i.llT!'J) tol'Jt£Jl(>A!ID	·-
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 	
2	APPLJCATION FOR REVIEW OF DtSCHARGE 	
3	LFrJ ER Of NOTIFICATION 	
4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO !HE BOARD
.l"UJDJT/ONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT Tl1E OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPE/\RANCE

. .

23Sep 2004	Fl)..2004·00183
ij[CNr·   ssUE AND	·BO·srn.csrONAI:.·_& °'':1 .	-i:;1.c-0N:1?JE ATTACHED A:IR'FORCE  orSCHARE.liVIE?l:B()_D J	.:
Case heard ac Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of Che Board and the right Co submit an application to the AFBCMR.

... ---------- ··-- --··----- ··----- ··---- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ···:..
"'···--......... .......	·--j"-- - --··----- ·----- ··-- ·----- ·----- ·----	·-----··- .	 	

.·	•	• •• •

. aji'ri<;: 912300.	..

.._,·:;:. , .	..  -

IND{)l(S.Ml'l'r	.

;-:,	·!

·- -

TO;	FROM:
SAFIMRBR

S[CR[TARY  or THE AIR  JORC[  PERSONl"t:L  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rl'.Yn:w BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND  DR. [I.WING. JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	A:"JDREWS  Al':S, MD 10761-7001

AFHQ FORM  0.2077, JAN 00	(EF·V2)	Previous edition \Viii be used

AJ R FORCE  DJSCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUl'-lBER

FD-2004-00183	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB  MD on September 23, 2004.  The followi ng witness also testified on the applicant's behalf:	
(his father).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5: Character Reference Letter,••••IBlll•·•·1111 •tllll ••ti5llUllJlllJJI J••llllllllll•·!·
After the hearing, the ORB obtained an E-mail message, dated 2 Apr 04 reflecting correspondepce between the respondent's father, AFPC/DPPR, and AFPC DPPRSP regarding the amendment of the respondent's DD Form 214 to reflect the receipt of the AFGCM; and an AFGCM listing dated 2 Sep 03 that contains the initials of the respondent's CCF and a note, "No-Place on hold status." These items are identified as Exhibit
6. Copies oflhe exhibit were provided to the respondent's counsel on 4 Oct 04.  Exhibit 7 is a reply received 5 Oct 04 consisting of comments by the respondent's counsel and father and a vMPF printout dated 31 Dec 03 that shows the respondent was awarded the AFGCM and the AFOUA.

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 did not meet the definition of an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge as described by AFI 36-3208 as the few and minor negative aspects of his conduct do not outweigh the many documented positive aspects of his service. The Board concluded the misconduct was minor, occurred within a brief time period, and was likely influenced by the applicant's diagnosed personality disorder. In examining the misconduct, the board further concluded that the quality of the applicant's service generally met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty and that the negative aspects of his conduct did not outweigh the otherwise positive aspects of the airman's total military record.

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. The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief