-;	--··-	-		·-·"

I	A IR FORCE DISCHARGE R F:VIEW BOARD HEARING R l!CORD
"'' '° "111; llli lo:l.'JJ'\.l lf l? 1\,.il:'llo,f Dt:'D 1l • C'T l".',.,.,.'T" .. n - .. ···rr•AI.)	GRA llE

- "' '"l

-	- ···-	-

A I C

 	 		·-· -- 	

I

TYPE GEN	--_ I	PERSONAL   APPEA R A NCF.	x	Rl!CORD   REVIEW	 	
COlJNS°EL	···-	---	-	-
YES	,,
,     NAM! OF COllNS:I. A ND  <IM   IHH;.u lZATION	ADDkESS AND OR ORG>.NJ:f,ATION OF COUNSEL

x	 	
--·-···" ··-·-	-···- · ···--	-	·--·	---
'	VOTE OF THE BOARJl      	 	

M F:M BER SITTING	------	..

- - ..	. ---

...._

HON	GP.N	UOT!!C	OTHl:R	DEN Y
---· ·	·-···
x	I
••         ."W''"""""	··-·
x
·-···	w···--
x
---	. -···	-
x
--	M'""   •	-·-	-· -··
x
-----··	·--		-·--- ,	...
ISSUES	A92.l9	INDEX NUMDEA	A67.IO	'  ' '•	l:xtllBITS S-U· IJMf(i'l>:D Tn TUE BOAR[)
·-	'	···--
A93.07	1	ORDER APPOI NTIN<o Tl IE DOARD	······---
2	APPLICATION fOR R E VI EW OF DISCIIARGE  	

3

LETTER Of NO! I FICATION
' ·--	···-···

-	' '''

_4 	

I   -

BR l ff OF PERSONNEL  FILE ..	- --
COUNSEL'S RELEA F TO THE BOARD    	
ADDITIONAL. cXH!JffTS slifiMITTED AT TI M F OF PERSONAL APPEA  A NCP

---	---··	··-
_ ,,_	TAPE R J-:CORDINCJ or PERSONAL APPF:AR AN(J'.
- -	-- .. -· -·	-··-----	-
liEA W.J NG DA I t	CASE NUMBER

25 .fan 2006	FD-2005-00153

·.    ·'	:.	..	. .

i\PL:lCA:N'.r' s ·ISSUl'i ANO '!He 'BOA:ll.U' s·.OOc;JSIONAl-. JV•TlONA.L ARE n1sc;t.r.$E.O::ON. ttif A"tlACHgrJ' Affl: FQ:il{: p  CHARO.C R£YrEW. l:!.OA.kJ) 0£CI$lONA.L RATION Alli
"	"'	"'   '    " "" "'	'	'      '       '	'   "'	,     ' .	•'	'	'        "'	'	'
I
Case heard at Washington, D.C., without the applican t's presence.  I le did not appear for " scheduled personal appearance. Advise applicant of the decision ofthe Board and the right lo submit an application to the AFBCMR _
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant al the applicant's request

.. ·-	-- -	'  •u • _    .,..._ .. ' .... ···--"•· •·	.

-·· .	... , .:

11SEMtNJ;	.·•• '    ·. • . - DATE' lll7/lll06	'

..;.	' INl1!)

·-·-	. ·--··---	-  -··	---	--

TO	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SEC.:IU;" j'A.fl:V OF THE AIR FORCE l'ERSOJll/lil'I. ('OIJ NC:IL
Am FORCE DISCHARGE R.EVJl(.W ROARD
550 C STREET Wl'.$T, SlnTE 40	153 COMM.ANO DR,   IL WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	ANPKt".WS A'Fll, MD ::!0762-1002
---			---	"	.. ·---	---·
AFHQ  PORM 0-2077, .JAN  00	(RF-V2)	Previous editlon v1lill bl': used

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL RATION ALE	CASE Nl.IMBER

FD-2005-00153	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance hefore the Discharge Review Board (DRR) and scheduled a personal appearance via video teleconference, but failed lo appeaL

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: None.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FIN DINGS:  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 cpange of discharge.

ISSU E:

Issue I . Appl icant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service.  Speci lit:all y, he noted he was discharged 3 weeks prior to his original date of separation, had served over 95% of his enlistmenl, and was already scheduled to separate voluntarily.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented hy his performance repo1is, letters of recommendation am.I  other accomplisluncnts.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects n l" the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

fasue 2.  The applicant cited the stress he faced at the time of his discharge because of personal conll icts he was experiencing with his wife.  In addition, he stated the aftermath of one incident with his spouse directly caused the events which became the basis of his second punishment under Article l 5, UCM.I.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact of his marital difficulties, but concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation and was withi n the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided foll administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable hasis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief