AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

x

x

X*+

x

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

•	GRADE
AlC

AFSN/SSAN

X

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION or COl,JNSEL

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

ISSUES	AOI.43 A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A84.00	
 ER APPOINTING THE BOARD 	 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OFPERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
llEARING DATE

03 Mar 2010	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00423			

Case heard in Washington, D.C.	

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
15.15 COMMAND DR, EE WlNG, lRD FLOOR ANDREWS A.I'll, MD 207'2·7001

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.

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00423	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, and  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 (ORB) but declined  and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends he was led to believe that when he was discharged from the Iowa Air National Guard, that he would be able to rejoin.   However,	that agreement was made, the appl icant indicates the paperwork that was submitted did not reflect the agreement and was changed without his knowledge. The Board was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and participating in the Civil Air Patrol as a major. The record indicates the applicant received a General discharge from the Towa Air National Guard for unsatisfactory participation. Upon review of the record, the Board found Special Order AA-187, dated 31 May 1994, which indicated the applicant was discharged from the Iowa National Guard with a General service characterization under provisions of ANGR 39-10, paragraph 5-8(a) (Unsatisfactory Participation). The record also contained an NOB Form    with an effective date of 15 June 1994, which reflected a characterization of service of "General" and a reenlistment eligibility of "eligible." The form further indicated the applicant was not available to sign the document. On 27 June  1994, the reenlistment  eligibility block was corrected to reflect "ineligible."  The record did not contain any information concerning the underlying basis for discharge (Unsatisfactory Participation). The Board looked at past cases where failure to participate was the basis and the Board noted that nonnally, members were separated with a General discharge. Due to lack of evidence and  supporting documentation  to further explain the d ischarge, the Board concludes that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. Relying on the presumption of regularity, the Board finds the characterization; reason for discharge and the reenlistment code were appropriate.

The Board highly recommends that if the applicant can provide additional documented infonnation to
substantiate his issue, that he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifthe applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should be prepared to provide the Board with factual evidence of the inequity/impropriety and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

CONCLUSION: 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Tn view of the foregoing findings, the Board fu1iher concl udes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determ ines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner 1s Brief