AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
7 1 1  TUl••:IL

GRADE SRA

AFSN/SSAN
ITl

TYPE  GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x

RECORD REVIEW

;' ·:(:o\jjiSEi;iJ';¥J..  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No	.
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

X*+ X*+ X*+ X*+

ISSUES	AOl.18

X*+

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

HEAIUNGDATE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00014

Case was tendered 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.
* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

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 REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS  Al'll, 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

FD-2005-00014		

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, 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). However, before he appeared the case was tendered to the DRB because review of the case file revealed improprieties warranting upgrade of the qis_9harge characterization.	.

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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant failed his CDCs twice, was notified of the impending discharge action, and was subsequently separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. At the time of notification, the applicant was informed that his commander was recommending an honorable discharge. Presumably based on this representation, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board and his right to submit matters on his own behalf. In the recommendation letter forwarding the applicant's case to the separation authority, however, the applicant's commander--without giving notice to the member--made a pen-and-ink change to his recommendation for discharge characterization from honorable to general. The DRB concluded that this impropric;ty usurped the member of his rights inthe discharge procedure. The DRB also found that the member's case had not been reviewed by the separation authority. Rather the separation was approved "for the commander" by a senior noncommissioned officer. There is no evidence inthe case file that the separation authority ever saw the applicant's case or made the determination on the applicant's discharge. The DRB further concluded that without any actionable misconduct, the member's service was best characterized as honorable.

CONCLUSIONS:

The overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. The applicant's oharacterization and reason for discharge should be changed to honorable and Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. His RE code should also be changed to "3K" to allow the applicant to reenter military service if he so desires.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief