AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

'

NAME  OF SERVICE  MEMBER  (LAST,  FI RST  M IDDLR  I N ITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

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

.----------------·

''	''

AlC

''	'

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD   REvrnw

'------------------------------ '	'-----------------'
TYPE   GEN	I	I
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COIJNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
.  ....,,.  ---

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY

.' ----------------------------------------- .'	X*
''	''
i-:'	'

'

''	''	X*
'	'
i-:'	'
'	''
''	''	X*
i-:'	'

''
''
i--:

''
'''	X*

'

'	''	X*
'	''
'	'
ISSllES	A92.2l	l"IH<:X  NI JMHl<:H.	A47.00	EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED TO THE BOARD
A93.11	A67.90	I	ORDER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD
A94.05	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 APPEAR A NCE

TAPE RECORDING OP PERSONA L APPEARANCE  I IE

HEARING DATE	CASE NIJMBl I<

09 Jan 2007	FD-2005-00059
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AlTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW ROARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.
* Change RE Code

.

,	I	i'
lf;l<il:t.!l!.3fiiici!1tI>EL< •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .l..o;.i<.ifuUU\.lf ll!..lo\llDJJ' ihl.ll.FJ'\.T.--••••••••••••••••
'
?'
----------------- ················· ··············
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 1/10/2007
TO:	J<'H.OM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  P>:KSONNl L COllNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1$35 COMM AN II DR, EE WING, JRIJ FLOOR
RANDOLPH  A l'B, TX  781504742	ANDREWS AFll, 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-2005-00059	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code. The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and exercised that right. The applicant appeared and testified before the DRB, without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 09 Jan 2007. The following witnesses also testified on the applicant's behalf: his wifer_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-j

No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.  The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment  code  are  denied.  The  Board  finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an ineq uity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s, two Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, one Record of Individual Counseling, and two verbal counselings for various acts of misconduct.  The DRB recognized that the command did not include the applicant's first Article 15 punishment action, although it was in the applicant's records and the applicant was aware that the DRB had reviewed the record.  The applicant's family's medical issues and the death of two of his closest relatives no doubt affected him emotionally, but the DRB did not find the impact sufficient to overcome or adequately explain the misconduct committed.
Over a span of five years and many different administrative and nonjudicial actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct outweighed the contributions made by the applicant.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not properly take into account the good things he did whi le in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, his deployment to Southwest Asia in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH, and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well in his employment prospects and his college education. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that Lhe 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