AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

'	'	SRA	'	'

i----------------------------------i	----------------

x

---------------------------------- !	'----------------'

TYPE  UOTH

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
I

l	RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x

-------------------------------------,'.
'
4-<	'

'

x

'.

t-'

'
'
.'
'.'	x
'.
'.'	x

x

'.
'

a•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••'
ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX NUMBER	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A67.00	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

19 April  2006	FD-2005-00129
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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

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

.'	·

7
.-sD.fJU:.CQBVW ••••• •2.1.f...z?......-<7•••••• 2..........l19.l. t\1.:.ll .'!. '!!!§!!t?............
'''
'- ....... ----·· ----·..........-...-... --,---------- ---,- -------- ••·s;.·2·- ..-..-..-..-..I..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- .·-··-··-··- - - - - - - - - - -
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 4/26/2006
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 I 50-4742	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

FD-2005-00129	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	The Board grants the requested relief and the discharge is upgraded to general.

The Board finds that the evidence of record substantiates an inequity that justifies a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the USAFR were aware of his socialization and speech difficulties as early as January 2001.  He further cites an impropriety that he was notified of his physical disqualification due to obsessive compulsive disorder and anger management issues and believed that was the reason for discharge in May 2004.  The applicant was discharged for Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline and physical disqualification with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions service characterization in October 2004 with misconduct being the primary basis for discharge. Applicant had three Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File entry for misconduct.
The first LOR was for using profanity at work, raging at other co-workers and failure to follow vehicle safety requirements.  The second LOR member was administratively demoted for failure to fulfill NCO responsibilities, after becoming belligerent during a mobility exercise and for displaying other inappropriate behavior while on duty.  His third and final LOR was for making obscene gestures to other drivers and passing at high speeds.  He also had two referral "2" Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs).  The Discharge Review Board (DRB) noted that member originally enlisted with the USAFR 28 Jun 90 and served until
14 Oct 00.  Applicant received his first referral EPR during his initial enlistment/extension.  Although USAFR medical authorities were aware of his medical issues as documented by SF Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care dated 24 Jan 91, the applicant was allowed to reenlist on 15 Oct 00 for another 6 years.  While the applicant's mental condition did not impair his ability to know right from wrong or ability to choose the right, the Board concluded his condition was related to his behavior to the degree that the
Board concluded a UOTHC characterization was too harsh in relation to severity and nature of the offenses and opines that the evidence of the record indicates that the applicant's service is more accurately characterized as General.

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 a General discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief