AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARII"G RECORD

NAM E OF SERVIC•:MEMHER (LAST, FIRST .\lll)J)LE INITIA i.)	'
-----··--· -----· -=--=-. -·-	-·]-- RECOf     . R rr_n'°\V__-_-	_	I
URt SS Mm OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSEL

x

x x
x
A94.06	INDEX NUMBER

Al'l'LlCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISC! IARGE I .ETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRJEf' OF
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE HOARD ADDITIONAL EXH!HlTS	OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
........-+------------------------
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL A PPliARANCE flEARlNG

HEARING llA n;

CAE NUMBER

Case heard in Washington, D,C.

A dvise 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 AFllCMR.

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

 	

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

Sl':CRt:TARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONNF.J. COUNCii. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE N:vrnw BOAR!l
1535 COMMAND DI, tE WING, JRD t·LoOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

---"·--····-----

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REYI E\:V BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE Nt:MBER

FD-2009-00168	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general.

The appl icant 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  appl icant  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 reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.
The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, a Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand, and  three Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  After thorough consideration of the information provided by the applicant, the records of the case, there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrading the discharge to general.  While the DRB did not condone the appl icant's incidents of misconduct, they did feed it would
have been more equitabl e to characteri ze his service as general.  The Board based this decision on primarily on findings from a contemporaneous case, involving similar charges, in whi ch the discharge characterization was upgrade.

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  m1d substantive req uirements 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 of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a General discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief