•·".	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

x x
x x

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

05 Oct 2005	FD-2005-00155

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 78I 50-4742	
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 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-2005-001 55	

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 applicant substantiates an impropriety or inequity 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 15's and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct involving the use of alcohol. All three instances were for drinking while under the age of 21. 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