AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

ITIAL)

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

-     --------------------1
x	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING	HON

DENY

-------------------------1----+----+----+----+	I
x

ISSUES

A94.02

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

x
x
x
x

1	ORDER APPOfNTfNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BGARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS  UBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDfNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
26 Apr 2005	FD-2004-00394

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
tSJ!'i COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 207,2-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2004-00394

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.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He is asking for an upgrade in order to obtain better job opportunities and to finish his education. The records indicated the applicant received four Letters of Reprimand for various minor misconduct to include sleeping on duty, failure to obey a lawful order concerning operating a motorcycle without taking the required course and for reckless driving. The DRB opined that though these administrative actions were indeed minor in nature and coupled with the applicant's otherwise four years of active service, with the misconduct occurring during the last five months, that the discharge was too harsh.

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 under the provisions of Title 10, USC  1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief