AIR FORCE DIS£HARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
llTIAL)

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10
A49.0I;>	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER 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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Jul 2005	FD-2005-00003

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, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 2-0762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE       FD-2005-00003

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 of the situation he was going through at the time, which was "an extremely difficult and painful divorce and a questionable pregnancy." The records indicated the applicant received five Letters of Reprimand and two Records of Individual Counseling for financial irresponsibility, ignoring guidelines of dress and appearance, failure to pay his rent on time, failure to clear off-base quarters, failure to maintain his dorm room to meet standard of cleanliness, failure to go and for being AWOL. In addition, he failed his CDC end-of-course exam twice and received two referral EPRs. 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