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

;'·-------------------------- .'
'---------------------------- '·

AB	r:·---------------- ·:
-----------------!

TYPE  GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

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

'-----------------------------------

llON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.0l A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDJTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2006

FD-2006-00103

Case heard in 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 application to the AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

-;- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - .A. - - - - - - - - -.	1

'F -- - - -- - - -: , ;,j!Jj,::::::::j:r·- - - -, ;- -- -..- - - -	oasiiiiriitii :::: ::: ,,:,:::: ::: ::::. - -- -·:,:: ,,,=j::::::::::::::: - - - - - -1,,17 ;-----

TO:

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

FROMo

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCF. PF.RSONNEL  COUNCii. AIR FORCE D!SCHARGF. RF.VIEW POAl<D
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, 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-2006-00103	

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 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:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young and mentally fragile.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article  15's, a Letter of Reprimand, and a
DD Form 1408 (traffic ticket) for misconduct.  His first Article 15 was for underage drinking and carrying a concealed weapon.  He was reduced in grade to airman basic.  The second Article 15 was for failure to go. He was punished with suspended forfeiture of pay and 14 days of extra duty.  His misconduct was further documented with a Letter of Reprimand for failure to go.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 2.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  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.

Ifhe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual
evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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 basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief