AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSNISSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATIOl'I OF COUNSEL

...

'  ,-	..	_,, _.. .,...'< -·-··....... , - --- . ...- · -·----·	---:::-	7
'	'	.	'	'
•	•	I   ,•,	• , '

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

X*+ X*+ X*+

ISSUES

A93.23 A94.55 AOl.07

ll'IDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEHER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASETOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SlfBMITf ED AT TIMEOF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*+
X*+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

11 Dec 2013	FD-2013-00451

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.

*Narrative reason and Authority
+RE Code

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

SECRETARY OFTH& AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ms COMMAND DR. EE WING,JRD 11,00R
ANDREWS AFB.MD 20761-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00451	

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

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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change of reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

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

Applicant contends discharge was both inequitable and improper based on his medical condition.  He believes he should have met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) prior to being discharged. The records indicated    the applicant received two Article  15s, one Vacation, seven Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of     Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included left headset on flight line and left the immediate area, failed to account for all tools in tool box, failed to follow order on two occasions by failing to get haircut and failed to fill out tags and tum in a part, failed to have technical data available during duty hours, failed to return from leave on time and was five days late in returning, failed to inform duty section he was going to be late, late for roll call and failed to inform section chief of lateness (2x),
failed to go to duty on time (2x),  failed to go to production roll call on time, absent from duty for an hour  and 45 minutes, failed to show for work in correct uniform, and failed to maintain accountability for comp wash kit.  After a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records and the evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board found the applicant's contention to have no merit.  Although the applicant was  diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, there is no evidence in the record that he was being considered for a MEB and he was medically cleared for discharge on 11 July 2012.  Additionally, there was no evidence that his condition was interfering with his Air Force career and the Board did not feel his misconduct was related to his disorder.  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