AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRSf MIDDLE L'IITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	RECORD REVIEW .
ADDRESSANO OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

ISSUES

A94.0S

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

x x x
x x

I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTfflCATION
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 NUM.BER

23 Aug 2013

FD-2011-00285

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 AFBC!V1R.

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

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

StCllJi. .ARY OFTHE AIR f"ORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EEWING, lRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,	20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2011-00285	

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 denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling. His misconduct included drinking underage, slept in class, failed to complete assigned homework, failed to adhere to uniform standards, failed to march back to class after lunch, failed to adhere to grooming standards, made sexually disparaging comments about females, and presented a false phase card to CQ personnel.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief