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

..----------------------------------- ''	AlC

-' --------------..

.	''	''	.

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I

RECORD     REVIEW---------------

}iit\	·· ···	·····    NAMF, Ot" COUNSF,L AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

..... ••••·•" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I:::.y(?••\? Y mm m · ·.••··•	, ..	.:r:I:Jlllllli

.............

' -
''
c    ';
''
''

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x	I
x

'

''	x
'

''

''	x
"---:

''
''
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

d.......,••••••••••..•.

x
·	// . llHIBIJ••••§.l,Jml.'1!fED.Jg!Tttl1!llgRD
·	
1	OR DER 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 HE

HEARING DATF.	CASE NUMBER

28 Sep 2006	FD-2006-00022

......

·:+tf"n" ' •·''•Y

•···•···••>III.

". >I i?	··• ·II:it•·•	I

.. JI><	·""'·;'?J.:r- ...	'·"'

. •?'>•	/ (

""'	" \}   '!:?)!

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 A FBCMR

Names and votes wi ll be made avail able to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	-
.':'

t :::r>!JI!!'i..:<>	.  \\     • }':]]:!?	.:"···	·   ···	- ·....

·:c ,o...•.....	. .•.
JIIIIJI

..I!l!'!:!l':!::l!!"!!Y"

··.·•	·•<••• > ·

:<:1•:1!l'lll!ill'I!    ...

.....	n  .•...	......... .....•
IIJ/\.	...

. ..

,......

TOo

FROMo
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COllNCH,
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WI NG, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS Arn, MD 20762.7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00022	

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 to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received four Article  l 5's and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  He received the Letter of Reprimand for using a personal cell phone on the flight line.  The first Article 15 was for wrongfully appropriating a pool stick and pool stick case.  He received a suspended reduction in grade to airman, forfeiture of pay, and restriction to Tinker AFB.  The second Article 15 was for stealing meals from the dining facility resulting in 30 days of correctional custody and forfeiture of pay.   The third Article 15 was for unlawfully touching another airman with a knife.  He received a suspended reduction to airman, forfeiture of pay, and a reprimand.  The fourth and final Article 15 was for assault by head butting a female.  He was red uced in grade to airman first class and required to perform forty-five days of extra duty.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct
was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  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 that 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 basi s for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief