AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

A67.10

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 DAT1!	CASE NUMBER

28 Aug 2014	FD-2014-00210

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.

TO:

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

FllOM:

SECRETARY Of THE AIR FORCE PllRSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARCt REVIEW llOAR.D 15.lS COMMAND DR, EE WING,3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB,MD 2976?-7otl

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00210	

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

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. Inreviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant's record of service included one Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling and three Records of Counseling. The misconduct included: failure to perform proper preflight inspection; with intent to deceive, made false official statement to an officer; failure to show on time for mission crew brief and flight publications were not properly posted; failure to obey order from CC to conduct inventory on the land mobile radios and made false statement to CC; failure to check and sign off FCIF/Go-No Go's in Epex prior to flight as mandated; failure to complete AMSS aircrew test on time; failure to ensure aircraft flip and publications were current; failure to complete assigned task; removal from crew position for cause, left personal and professional gear unsecured and unaccounted for outside squadron; failure to go to duty on time and failed to secure classified material.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He believes that it was based on a single incident that that had been properly dealt with by his Article 15. The Board opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior. The Board noted that in some of his replies to disciplinary action, member agreed he had no excuse for his behavior and stated it would not happen again. However, he was not motivated enough to conform to standards and his misconduct continued. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board reviewed the entire record and found the discharge was appropriate for the reasons listed. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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