AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD REVIEW

: :;,:·,' .i{-r  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

,·	.·.

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x

x

A93.01 A92.01 A94.05

'.90

x x x
..·' . ' .Ex:tHBrrsSuBMffl'El> TO THEBOARD
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  DATE	CASE NUMBER

05 Feb 2014	FD-2012-00498

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

fijN'fv '  J( • , ' ··
FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00498	

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 A pattern of Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The records indicated the applicant was convicted under a General court-martial, received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included disrespect to an AF member who was in a position of authority, failed to go to duty on time (2x), failed to properly complete thru-flight inspection, failed to accomplish assigned duties, failed to compete task on three separate occasions, violated military protection order (2x), willful damage to military property, destroyed cell phone belonging to SrA, destroyed dress and purse belonging to SrA, stole digital video disc belonging to A 1C, assaulted female airman, caused broken glass to strike a SrA, unlawfully placed hands on SrA, drunk and disorderly, unlawfully entered female airman dorm room and unlawfully entered male airman dorm room.
The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was  appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when he was young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.
The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, has a good job, and attending college However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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 ful 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