AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMB:R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
.:-------------------------- ·:

AFSN/SSAN
·:----------------·:

1 -=- --= --=- --=-=-=- -r=---=- --=--=- - --·-	--	-+- ...-	+---<1-

-- --- -- --- --- ---:	,

TYPE   GEN	x	I

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

I	RECORD  REVIEW

n:s	No

1-------1 NAME  OF UJUNSEL  AND OR ORGANIZATION
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi,

-----

MEMBER SlTilNG	HON

'''
--------------------------------- '

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x
x
x
x

ISSUES

A93.0I A94.05

INDEX  NUMBF:R

A67.30

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3	LETTER or NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSON NEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASI-' TO TllF BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING  DA'U:	CASE NUMBER

OS Jun 2006	FD-2005-00042
Al'PIJ!,GANT'S ISSIJ6 "1:1  B flQAIUl'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE-ATTACHED AIR POl\CI! 01$CHARQl! Rl!Vll! OfP DllCl!fNAL   Tlsrrlii
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.

X - Upgrade, change RE Code and change Reason & Authority are denied

--- --·r r ·--- --- --- -

u- - - - - - - - - - - -

'':...----- ''
-:z,- iNooitSlim"N'r- --- --- --- --- --- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --..."i>A."Ti:-1oi31i'oo6

L/	•    , " d-,'	i i
TOo	FROMo
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH A FB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY O•' THI: AIR •'ORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR >"ORC•:OISCHAl<G REVIEW BOARD 15J5C0MMAN'11 DR,  F:E  WING,  3R.D  Fl..OOR
ANDREWS AFB, MO 20762·7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00042	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority and change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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, change of reason and authority and change of the reenlistment code are 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 received a General discharge for Misconduct--Commission  of a Serious Offense

Issue 1: Applicant contends that he was young and immature.  He states that that he is a more responsible and has learned from his past mistakes.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 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 concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 2:  Applicant contends his court martial punislunent was inequitable because another airman involved  in the same incident only received a few weeks of corrective custody.  The records indicate that the applicant received three Records of Individual Counseling, a Letter of Counseling and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The misconduct included irresponsible driving with a government vehicle, failure to go and on leave without proper authorization, and parking in the roadway, impedi ng traffic.  The Board found the applicant's issues to be without merit and concluded the miscond uct 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