AIR FORCE DISCH ARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, .FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AlC
L APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

AIJIJRF:SS ANIJ OR ORGANIZATION OF COllNSf:L

:\1E:\1BER  SITTING	DENY
X*+ X*+ X*+ X*+

ISSUES

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 SUl1MfTTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDlNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARfNG

CASE N!ll\UlER

FD-2008-00538

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 wi l l  be made available to the appl icant at the applicant's  request.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

SECRETARY Ot' THE AIR fORCF: PF.RSONNF.L  COl!NCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND IJR, EE Wlr>G, 3RIJ FLOOR AN!lRF:WS AFR. MIJ 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE :\'llMBF:R

FD-2008-00538	

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) 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.

ISSUE:  The applicant contends discharge was inequitable based on the fact that he was battling a back injury that he was later awarded a disability rati ng of 20% by the Veterans Administration.

FINDINGS:	The  Board  denies  the  upgrade  of  the  discharge,  to  change  the  reason  and  authority  for discharge and to change the reenl istment code.

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

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because the separation authority did not take into account that he had a back injury that should have caused him to be medically discharged.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, six Letters of Reprimand, and, three Records of Individual Counseling for miscond uct.  His misconduct i ncluded failure to properly maintain tool control (2x), a domestic incident, failure to follow a technical order (3x), failure to maintain control of his government travel card and PIN,
failure to properl y repair a strake rid, speeding on base, and failure to maintain his government quarters IAW establ ished inspection standards.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The available med ical record indicated that he had a back injury.  However, there is no indication withi n the available records that the injury warranted medical separation.  .Further, the available service record indicated the applicant did not raise the back injury as a matter to the separation authority.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.

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 the applicant provided ful l administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.	
Attachment: Examiner's Brief