AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
tTIAL)

·1rrr,  l.JbN	x	RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING
\

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

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 SUBMITT D AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

REARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

21Jul 2005	FD-2004-00502

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, 3RD FWOR 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-2004-00502	

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 does not contest his discharge. He states that the military was not right for him at the time. The records indicated the.applicant received two Article 15s. One for operating a motor vehicle on base after having a lawful order not to do so. The other for DWI and failing to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal age of 21. In addition, he received three Letters of Counseling and two Letters of Admonishment  for being late for duty on four separate occasions and for throwing trash from the second floor balcony. 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.

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