AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

''	'	'	'

'·'------------------------------- '·'	AMN	-' --------------- ·'
-------------------------------- '	--------------- ·

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x  I

RECORD REVIEW

·.

rt\1 '1C.'1..l    . L NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No

NO

.•. ...•.•:• >Ji/it/······	VOTE   OFTHE BOA.JU>
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

'

------------------------------------ '	x

'

_,	'

'	x

'' '
-'	'

'	x

'' '
'
''
''	x
'
'
''	x
------------------------------------ '
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX  NUMBER	A66.00	......····	EXIJllJlTS  SUBMITTED  TO THE  BOARQ
1	ORDER APPOrNTI NG TH E 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 HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

01 Dec 2006	FD-2005-00123
APPLICANT'S ISSUE A)'IQ Tfl$1loAl\P'S•••t:1aC!SIONAL RATIONAl!/AIU'ib! SC\ISl>llD.ON Tf!F;ATrACHED AIR FORCE QISCHAROE REVlllW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
·.·.·.

Case heard in 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.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ....,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..;.:1- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'
!
'.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'

- - ·::.- - - - - - - - - - "U""Ciili()iisiMENT	15

'

'
'

'

'

'

'
'
DATE:  12/12/2006

TO,	FROM'
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARV  OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742	ANDREWS 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-2005-00123	

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:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.
The records indicated the applicant received three Article  15's and two Letters of Reprimand for misconduct. The applicant was administratively disciplined with two Letters of Reprimand for being late for training, failure to go, and failure to pay debts.  He received his first Article 15 for sleeping on post while being
posted as a sentinel.  He was disciplined with a suspended reduction in grade to Airman, suspended forfeiture of pay, and 19 days of extra duty.  His second Article 15 was for failure to have a valid
Government driver's license and through his own neglect, causing damage to a government vehicle.  He was disciplined with forfeiture of pay for two months.  His third Article 15 was for failure to go to appointed place of duty.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman.  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