ITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER-SITTING

ISSUES	A94.05	7.10

HON	GEN	UOTHC

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

2	APPL!CATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITT  D AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Jul 2005

FD-2005-00076

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 A.EVIE\\' BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFP, MD l0762·7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\fBER

FD-2005-00076	

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 it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, one for using his government credit card for personal purchases, and the other for willfully failing to refrain from operating a motor vehicle while his driver's license was under suspension. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for willfully failing to maintain his dormitory room within the prescribed standards. Finally, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to go. The applicant states that he had no problems in the service until the First Sergeant was replaced and he states that he was kicked out for not keeping his quarters clean. These issues are without merit. The applicant received an overall "I" on his EPR and he was discharged for the various misconduct as stated above. 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	

.