AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

SSGT

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS  AND  OR ORGAIZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING
··----- ··----- ···----··---- ··----- ··

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

HON

x x x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

I	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

17 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00233

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

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

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORC'E PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRP FWOR 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

Ff>-2004-00233	

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 two Article 15s, three Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and two Verbal Counseling for misconduct, and for failure to progress in the Weight Management Program. The DRB opined that the primary reason the applicant was discharged was for failure in the weight program and thought that this was too harsh. The Board did not condone the other acts of misconduct, but opined that the first ten years of the applicant's duty performance warranted favorable consideration for upgrade  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 and should be changed under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief