AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE  GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

X+ X+ X+ X+

DENY

X+

AOl.18 AOl.32 AOI.44

A69.00 A45.00

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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

07 Feb 2011	FD-2009-00476

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 appl ication to the AFBCMR.

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

I + CHANGE      EASON  AND AUIH.ORITY  1.:0 SECRETARIAL  AUTHORITY

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

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7001

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077,  JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00476	

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

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.

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 requested relief.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (general) discharge for failure in the alcohol abuse treatment program. Applicant states he refused to participate in the program because he desired to be discharged. While the Notification Memorandum for the discharge makes reference to a history of tardiness and smelling of alcohol while on duty, and the legal review states that"respondenf s conduct clearly outweighs the positive aspects of his service'neither memorandum documents the specific misconduct upon which the characterization of service was apparently based. Because applicant was not properly notified of the misconduct upon which the characterization of his service would be based, he was not afforded an informed opportunity to determine whether he should respond. Although applicant failed to respond to his discharge action, and clearly was anxious to be discharged, he may have determined to respond differently had he been notified of the specific misconduct upon which the characterization of his service would be based. Although applicant had misconduct in his record, and wanted to be discharged, that does not allow for the proper procedures to be overlooked in the processing of the discharge action. The Board finds that the omission of the misconduct upon which the discharge characterization would be based from the notification and legal review documents was a harmful error which was prejudicial to the applicant.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inconsistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and finds the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicanf s service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief