AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAR n «1" .lIHNr. IH'.C'ORD
IITIAL)

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x.

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERSl 1'TING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

x

OTHER

DENY
x

x x x

ISSUES

A95.00

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

03 Aug 2005

FD-2005-00064

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 mE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ISJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREW$ 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-2005-00064	

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.
ISSUE: The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 1Ss and a Vacation action under the UCMJ for being disorderly, AWOL, and for failure to go. In addition, he received three Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, being late for duty, and failure to maintain proper standards for his dormitory room.  Although the applicant submitted no issues, he did include a letter from		a District Service Officer from the Division of Veterans Affairs in North Carolina. In that lettcr.I• states that the applicant was awarded a 30% disability for sleep apnea and that she believes this had an effect on his behavior while in the military. The Board did realize that in some cases, there may have been a connection with tardiness and for failure to go. However, some of the more serious misconduct, i.e. AWOL, disorderly conduct, and failure to maintain proper standards for his dormitory room, had no nexus with his sleep apnea. The DRB was not persuaded that this medical condition would overcome his current discharge characterization. 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