AIR FORCE DISCHA RGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  I NITIAL)

GRADE

SRA
X	RECORD  REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF ('Q{INSEL

VOTE OF THE

HON

G EN

UOTHC

OTHER

X*+

X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

ORDER APPOINTI NG Tl IE HOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCI IA RGE
3	LElTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADIJ!TIONAI, EX! llRITS SUflMITTEO AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TA PE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASF. NllMREH

07 Dec 2009	FD-2008-00577

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made avai lable to the applicant at the applicant's

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

SAF/MRBR
550 C STR L..:J.T WEST. SUJTE 40
RAN DOi.i'i l AFH,  TX 78!50-4742

SF.Cf!F.TARV OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL COllNCIL AIR  t'ORCE  DISCHARGE  Rt:vn;w  HOAK{)
1535 COMMAND DH, EE WING. 31{1) t"L001{
Af\iDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE  NUMBER

FD-2008-00577	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change of reason and authority and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and elected to exercise this right. However, the case was tendered before the personal appearance hearing date. A tender consideration is the process of reviewing a projected personal appearance case to detennine if the board would grant the requested relief based on the evidence in the service record and a possible impropriety found in the administrative discharge.

After a review of the record, the Board unanimously voted to grant the relief of the req uested upgrade as discussed below.

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief

The Board finds evidence in the record to substantiate an inequity that would justify a change in  the discharge. Therefore, for the reasons specified below, the Board grants the upgrade  of the  applicant's discharge and the change to the reenlistment code to 3K.

ISSUE: The applicant contends discharge was ineq uitable based on the failure by command to properly administer her CDC training.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records the Board had indicated the command had not taken any administrative action, such as a letter of reprimand, or adverse action such  as non-judicial punishment under Article 15. The records further indicated that the applicant was issued two CDC tests within a two week period and the Board noted the applicant's statement that her trainer failed at
least one CDC test while training the applicant.  The Board found that based on the above, that in this case, a General Discharge was too harsh for merely failing to progress.  Thus, the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant and the RE code were found to be inappropriate.

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 full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of  applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief