AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SESVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE: INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

GEN	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC

•••••1111 .1

•

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

!ION	GEN
x

UOTHC	OTHER

OENY

x x x
x

ISSLiES

A94.05

INDEX NUMilER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOrNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TIO.N	_ 	
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEi. FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECOR DING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

111'.ARING  DATE	CASE NIJMilER

07 Sep 2004	FD-2004-00111

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF nu:AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, F.E WING, 3kD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, Mii 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-2004-001 11	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The appl icant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD on September 7, 2004.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Appl icant's contentions
Exhibit 6:  Character Statement from	atcd 1 Sep 04 Exhi bit 7:		undated
Exhibit 8: Character statement from	•dated 29 Aug 04
Exhibit 9: MFR from J I . 1!11. fltlated 30 Aug 04
Exhibit 10: Character statement frorljlJf..	'WPZll	,.dated 15 Jun 04
Exhh bt 1 1: NCharatedr statement	om '3	! :* W' .:	:,::n udn.=......_	d	A
Ex 1 1t 12:	otanze   statement 1rom p...-1  nt   a		.an	ate   31	ug 04
Exhibit 14: Letter w/atch from •l•P Nellis A DC Paralegal dated 31 Aug 04
Exhibit 13: Copy of letter to Nel l is AFB, 57 OSS Orderly Room dated 6 Aug 04

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the appl icant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board  finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided  by the appl icant substantiates an ineq u ity or impropriety that would justify a change of d ischarge.

ISSUE:  Appl icant contends d ischarge was inequitable because it was too harsh and states that their were factual issues and equitable issues in regards to the general discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 1 5, three Letters of Reprimand, one Record of Individual Counseling and a Vacation action under the UCMJ for
m iscond uct.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concl uded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of al l m i l itary members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be
appropriate.  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.  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.

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 fu l l 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