AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD  REVIEW

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
	x					
	x					
	x					
	x					
	x					

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

ISSUES

A94.06
A94.56

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

HEARING  DATE

CASE l'UMBER

23 Jun 2011

FD-2009-00539

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 request.

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, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00539	

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.

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 to upgrade discharge to honorable.

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 general discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because he was discharged for failure to progress in training and he was later diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that would have affected his performance. The records indicated the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance: failute to progress in on-the-job training, and had been withdrawn from his Air Force specialty for failure to obtain rating. The board reviewed the entire record, to include the training records in detail. The applicant's records reflect excellent performance on training testing material, but reflect extensive inability to comprehend and apply the training in simulator/real work conditions. The DRB found that a correlation between the member having ADHD and his difficulties in training progression could be made. Therefore, the board opined that while the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process, the characterization of the discharge was too harsh and inequitable.

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.

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.

Attachment:	
Examiner's Brief