-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AlC	AFSN/SSAN	
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW	
· ;·. QJlJ'<,$.p.; i"
YES	No

x	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL	
MEMBER SITTING			
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
						x +*	
						X +*	
						x+*	
						X+*	
						X+*	
ISSUES A94.11 AOl.13 A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	\'!!":!:;*tf<l;{ if!@:J» Xi$,Jilli	q	\\iF}ili'tfi! \lE:' \;_ •···-··_..
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

07 Feb 2006	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00171			
	
Case heard at Washington, D.C. and Randolph AFB, Texas via video teleconference.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

+ Change RE Code
* Change Reason and Authority
I	I	/J	
SIGNATURE OF '&ECORl>ER    c/  I

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

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-2005-00171

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge and to change the reenlistment code. The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews  AFB,  Maryland  and  Randolph  AFB, Texas on 07 Feb 2006 via video teleconfrence. The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends the he was wrongfully accused of sleeping on duty on the flightline during the launch of a B-1B aircraft.  The evidence against the applicant consisted of written statements by three flightline NCOs, to include an E-7 Production Superintendent and an E-7 Expediter.  The applicant contended, both then and now, that he did not fall asleep on the flightline.  Despite his contention, the applicant's commander concluded that the applicant committed the act and imposed nonjudicial punishment. Thereafter, the commander initiated involuntary separation for a series of minor disciplinary infractions.
After consideration of the applicant's sworn testimony and the evidence ofrecord, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the commander's finding and concluded that the applicant had negligently performed his flightline duties.  Furthermore, the Board concluded that the characterization of
the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that he was not permitted to see his base commander and that he was discharged from the military under duress.  Under AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment and AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation of Airmen, the applicant was not entitled to a personal appearance before the wing commander.  The Board also noted that the applicant had consulted counsel during his two nonjudicial
punishment actions and in his involuntary separation action.  The Board found no impropriety in any of these actions.

Issue 3.  Finally, the applicant states that he has been a respectable, responsible individual with steady employment with Boeing Aerospace in San Antonio, Texas since his discharge.  He further stated that he was a father of two children and that he desired to serve his country again as did his grandfather, father and sister.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, had a good job, and was soon to obtain a business management degree.  However, the Board concluded, in this case, that these facts did not raise a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade or other relief.

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 or other relief, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief