AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB
X	RECORD REVIEW

'\"ES	No
x

NAME OF COJ.;NSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR O!lGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER 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

HEAR.ING DATE	CASE NUMBER

24 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00256

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:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE  REV1E\\o' BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, '1-ID 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-2004-00256	

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

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 and change of reenlistment code are 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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and he should have been given the opportunity to retrain. The records indicated the applicant failed two block tests and thus was eliminated from the Personnel Apprentice course due to academic deficiencies. Applicant concludes that he should not be labeled with "Unsatisfactory Performance" for failure on two block tests. The DRB opined that the reason for discharge was Unsatisfactory Performance, which is in accordance with AF!36-3208, paragraph 5.26 based on documented failure to meet Air Force standards. The Board concluded that administrative separation was in the best interests of the Air Force and was appropriate.

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