AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NA.'.\'1E OF SERVICE l\JEJ\JBER (LAST. FIRST J\110DLE INITIAL)

GRADE	A FSN/SSAN

SSGT
X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGMIZATION OF COUNSEi.

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x
x x x
x

ISSL·t:s

A94.07

!:'\'DEX NUMBER

A70.00

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL"S RELEASE TO TIJE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Jun 2005

FD-2004-00487

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without qrnnsel, 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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCTu\RGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDRE""'S AFB, ri.m 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JA"i I 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00487	

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 ineq uitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 10 years of service with no other adverse action.  The records indicated the applicant requested and received a general discharge in lieu of court-martial for disobeying a lawful order, dereliction of duty, making a false statement, and adultery. 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 equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief