.•

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST. FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	A FSN/SSAN

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN
x x

x

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x x

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

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

01 Dec 2005	FD-2005-00266

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SlGNATURE OF Rli'.l'ORn..o	SIGNATURE OF	PRESDJENT / ,,r'

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
153 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 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-2005-00266	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge  Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 01 Dec 2005.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Character reference letters (2)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  The discharge is upgraded to honorable.
ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received numerous disciplinary actions over a prolonged period of time for minor infractions but performance of duty was satisfactory and the applicant was retained and deployed with his unit. The ORB noted that the documented incidents of misconduct while deployed that triggered the discharge were of a trivial nature and concluded that the punishments for these incidents were unusually harsh and resulted in discharge under two months prior to the expiration  of the applicant's term of service. The DRB also considered the mitigating facts and circumstances regarding incidents of tardiness and financial difficulties as evidenced in the record as well as in testimony and, by majority vote, concluded that the discharge was too harsh in light of the positive aspects of his service. However, the Board concluded that the reason for discharge should not be changed because his misconduct caused his commanders to lose confidence in his ability to meet standards of performance and it properly describes the basis for discharge.

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 the Board concludes that the totality of the evidence of the record and that during testimony indicates the character of discharge was too harsh and 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.
The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief