AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE   IEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COONSl:'.L

X* X* X* X*

X*

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGf.
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILf;
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT flME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE lll::AR!NG

HEARING DATE

CASl': N\IMBF.R

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

* CHANGE R E CODE

S:CRETARV OF TllE AIR FORCE  PER ONNEL  COllNCIL AIR t'ORO: DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAflill DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANllRF.WS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE   -	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009_00033	

GENERAL: The applicant appeal s for upgrade of discharge to honorable 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 avail able pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

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

FINDING:   The Board grants the req uested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. H owever, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. Applicant contends he should receive an upgrade in his discharge characterization to honorable and a	in RE Code because he engaged in no misconduct while on active duty and merely failed to progress in training within the vehicle maintenance career field. Applicant notes he spoke with a recruiter from the Pe1msylvania National Guard who said the unit would be willing to work with him if he had his discharge "upgraded." The DR B opined that while applicant undisputedly twice failed his CDC end-of-course exams, and failed to progress in on the job training, the file contained no evidence that the respondent engaged in misconduct or in any other way failed to meet Air Force standards of acceptable conduct during his time i n		Further, the ORB is troubled by the squadron 's affirmative decision not to have applicant tested for learning or reading deficiencies, despite his ongoing failure to progress in on-the-job training and his trainer's documented concerns about the respondent's apparent inability to apply learned knowledge to real life taskings and to retain knowledge. In sum, the DRB finds that the "significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty" do not outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record, so as to warrant an under other than honorable (general) discharge in this case.

CONCLUSION:	The  Discharge  Review  Board  concl udes  that  the  discharge  wa<>  consistent  with  the procedural   and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regul ation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the discharge authority and the applicant was provided  full administrative  due process.   However,  in view of the fi>regoing  findings,  the  Board  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of  applicant's  service  is  more  accurately reflected  by  an  Honorable  discharge  and  the  reenlistment  code,  3K  under  the  provisions  of Title  10, USC 1

Attachment: Examiner's Brief