AIR FORCF w	IARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
ITIAL)	'

ITYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	I	R ECORD REVIEW	-
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x x x

x

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

II  I

1	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

06 Jul 2005	FD-2004-00421

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

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

" •'fl  '

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00421	

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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling for various acts of misconduct to include financial irresponsibility, dereliction of duty, failure to attend mandatory training and failure to go. The DRB opined that the applicant had excellent service during his first three years in the Air Force and that his misconduct began after arriving at his new assignment to Elmendorf AFB. The Board opined the LOR the applicant received for failure to properly document aircraft forms was appropriate for this serious safety infraction. However, the majority of the DRB thought the LOR for not having proper hearing protection was not equitable inasmuch as it wasn't applied to all members that traverse the flight line. Moreover, the Article 15 is in question because a TSgt shift-worker attested to the fact that the applicant's report time was at 1400 hours, as noted on the log book, (which the applicant met) and it is not known whether or not his commander was aware of this evidence or took it into consideration when deciding to offer the applicant the Article 15. The Board also noted the applicant had approximately 6 months remaining before completion of his current term of enlistment. Nonetheless, the Board does not condone the fact that the applicant was late in repaying his American Express bill and the other minor misconduct.

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