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

AMN	AFSN/SSAN	
TYPE   GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW	
	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	

MEMBER SITTING

ISSUES

A94.54

x
x
x
INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

2 APPLJCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OP PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

29 Jul 2009	FD-2008-00303

Case heard in 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 request.

JJ	

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 2076:1-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00303	

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: Upgrade of discharge is approved. The characterization of discharge is upgraded to honorable.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board identified inequity based on irregularity that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found evidence of inequity compared to similar cases reviewed.  The record indicates the applicant received one Record of Individual Counseling, two Letters of Counseling and three Article 15s.  His misconduct included failure to go, failure to wear seat belt while operating a government vehicle, insufficient funds/poor check writing practices, dereliction of duty (x2) and leaving appointed place of duty without proper authority.  However, based on case history for similar instances, the Board concluded the characterization should be upgraded to reflect a more consistent pattern. The discharge itself was not brought into question, only the characterization.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation but was still within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

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