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

.'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.'
I          '------------------------------------- ·'

AIC

'' -------------·''

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL  AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR Ol!GANIZATION  OF COlrNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING
·'       ----------------------------------

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE HOARD
2	APPUCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISC! IARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTlf!CATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEi .'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X*+

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARA NCE  HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NllMBER

20 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00217

Case heard i n Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR

Names and votes wil l be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

.:;!<;il'J..\i&&O !.l!KOSl.ll;':I!.••••••• •4'. {•••?J.•.•.•--.•......··"·.•.•.•.•.JHGi..\'fU1 ,E.QI/. !l!)l!l/11!!fIPJ!'1£l••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH A FB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY  Ot" THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCii. AIR FORCE DISCllARGfi: REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, F,I<; WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762.71102

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00217	

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 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, change ofreason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and he was under emotional stress from home and work.  He has expressed a desire for upgrade of his discharge to allow for reenlistment in the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, and two Letters of Reprimand, and a Memorandum for Record for misconduct.  Applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to appointed place of duty by not participating in an Exercise Evaluation scenario and failure to shave before reporting for duty.  Ile was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman First Class, forfeiture of  pay, restriction to base, 14 days extra duty (suspended) and a reprimand.  He received a Vacation action for failing to maintain his dormitory room to standards.  He received 14 days of extra duty.  Applicant had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for failure to go, failure to obey a lawful order and being insubordinate towards an NCO.  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 equitabl e basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief