Last saved by: melissa.pares

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

ONAL APPEARANCE	_x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ.ATION OFCOUNSEi.

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	^DENY
x x x x
x

l  UES

A94.55

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

t
l 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 EXHffilTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	^CASE ^NUMBER

^02 ^Aug2013	FD-2013-00311

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 voteswill be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSON NEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHAAGE RE\1EW B0"1U> 153 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RI> fLOOR ANDREWS Al'B, MD 20762-7901

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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

CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00311

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. He states the Article 15 issued to
him on 14 September 2011 was invalid and believes that he would have received an honorable discharge had he not received the Article 15.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Admonishment, and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  His misconduct included failed to dispose of unused, obsolete equipment by deadline, failed to go to physical training, failed to go to physical training on time, failed to show at appointed time for practice PT test, failed to maintain food log as directed by commander, and failed to go to duty.  Although the applicant did provide the Board with a copy of his Leave and Earning Statement (LES) that reflected he was charged leave for the time  period of the Article 15, they found that the LES, by itself, was not enough evidence to support his  contention of inequity.  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.

The Board highly recommends that if the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issue(s), that he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifthe applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should be prepared to provide the DRB with
factual evidence of the inequity/impropriety and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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