AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRAln:

AlC

RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC

x x

OTHER	DENY

x x
x

1  ORDER APPOINTING THE f!OARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM!TTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASR !'IUMTIER

13 May 2010

FD-2009-00070

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.

SA P/M R BR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ l<'ORM 0-2077, JAN 00

S1':CRliTARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNn COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WIJ'IG. lill Fl..OOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 10762- 7001

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00070	

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 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 grants the requested 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. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization  for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the appl icant received five Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  His misconduct consisted of failure to go, failure to complete required test, being late for work (three times) and failure to complete clinical documentation.  While the DRB did not condone the  applicant's misconduct, they did feel it would have been more equitable to give him an honorable discharge.

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.

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.

However, in view of the  foregoing  findings,  the  Board  concludes  that  the overall  quality  applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. Therefore, the applicant's characterization for discharge should be changed to Honorable.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief