PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

YES

No

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

x

x

x

x

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
ITIAL)

TYPE GEN

-

x

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

ISSUES

A94.53
A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

08 Sep 2005

FD-2004-00295

Case heard at 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	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2004-00295	

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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on several incidents in 11 months of service with adverse actions. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a vacation action, three Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included failure to report for duty and failure to obey orders, failure to go on multiple occasions, late for duty, failure to report for mandatory physical training, and making disparaging and racial remarks. 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 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.

Inview 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