AIR l<'ORCE DISCHA){G E imvmw BOARD HEARING RECORD
ITIAI.)	I
,	AMN

L1n :·--_a·__·--·  -

I  ----------- ------x+--.I -- ----	-

:.N

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

1- co_1..1,.·'sEJ_--i '.'<AM;OF COl':"SEI. AM> OR ORGAll'- 1'1\)

..   .

x
j.. ;..·, ". ··:· .	.:-·:Ynt.9:f'.?JJM'!P£-.....--	-

M EMBER  SlTJ'l NG	HON

<•EN	I L:OTHC	OTIII:R

DGNY
x
x

··-------------+----------+---- ----------<
x
--	----------+-----+-----+-----t-----1	1
x
x
A67.90		EXlflBlTS SUB_MITTE. . P.'ifl lE-O.UW 	

--- -

O-R-O-·ER ·APPOINTIN G Tiii:BOAHU	1

2	APPLICATION FOR IU'.VIEW O DISCl 11\Rf it-'
------1
3	IJ'.1TER OF NOTIFICi\TION
4	BRIEi:OF Pt-:RSONNl'I. FILI'.
COUNSl .1.'S tff l .El\Sf-. TO '1111.' IKJ,\ I( I l
,___PE_RSONA L l\Pl'_FAR:\NCI'	_
1\0l)ITIONAl. l!.X HIBITS sTJUMit"·'1"·1'":t">,..."A'·"r"=T=1M l:OI.---J
.
Ir·---..-··.,.....-··-·----------··--·...--- --------------.----..---·---·-·-
I llb\l<l'<c ; iJ..\TE	C\SE :-.:1: 1111-:R
I
j :?5 Jan 2006	FD-2005 -00069

Case heard a l Washi11g1 on, D.C.
I1\Jvisc applica111 of lh decision of the Board ancl the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.
INa mes a nct vote.; will be mack nva ili:lble to the applicant a t t he applicant 's request.

I

-

!	..   ....-------
I

ll
-----..ow:::........--.	.....,,',...,..	--D-Oru;·E=M-...f,...,.N_,'F· ,_.. ;i. .•,. .._ ..,J..

:	. .	. -	.  :  ' : . DA-T.E  /.,Z/,20Q6	.

t'-

- - ,	:                               ; ,:,, .· ·tn::.,·----·--·..·-···-·-__,:::.....::.....:::.:.:.:.2S,·_.·,,"··";R- -,;·"'·""'-!-.f-: ;i;, ::.;;:-v-/-11Ei ri;:;,l· ·11. -···--·---

I

,7	•	1535 COMM.6',."IJ IJR, l::t:WI!'> (.,.llW Fl,1)01{
R.'\NDOl .1'11 AFB.TX  7 I (J-47-l	A:"iDRE\\'S ,\fB.MD Z•l762-?0ll2

------ ----·	_ J		_

AFBQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-Y2)	Prcvi1)U!S edition will b  usJ

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00069	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was scheduled to appear and testify before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), via Video­ Teleconference between St. Augustine, FL, and Andrews AFB, MD on 25 Jan 2006, but failed to appear or notify the ORB.

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  provid ed  by  the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant recei ved a general discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.

Appl icant contends discharge was unjust and that he suffered from emotional issues and was unfairly
discharged, almost forced out of the Air Force. The record s indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a vacation action, three Letters of Reprimand, and two Record s of Individual Counseling for misconduct to include repeated tard iness in reporting for duty, repeated disrespect to superiors and co-workers, repeated
failure to meet dress and personal appearance standards, lying, threatening and disorderly conduct, provoking confrontations with co-workers and dorm mates, and sleeping on duty. 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.  Since no documentation was produced to substantiate applicant 's claim of suffering from
emot ional issues, this issue was deemed to be without merit. The applicant also cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these	
benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. 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