AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, 111RST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
r -----------------------------1	-------------

AlC	'	'

'	'
----------------------------2

'	'
L------------

TYPE	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	APPRESS ANP OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

"'""'""".:.<i' """"'"'""""" '''"""'''\=,.,,.-.-	""'  ,· ._ ,.,
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

.....

------------------------------------- ·'
''
''

X+*

'

'	X+*
'
ro	'
'

'

'	X+*
'

'

'"'	'    	

'

'	X+*
'

'

ro	'
''	X+*
-   ---------------- '·
1ss111:s	A94.11	INPEX  NUMBER	A29.00	EXHIBIT SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
AOl.07	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A90.07	2	APPLICATlON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOT!l'ICA TION
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  PATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00213
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND	BOARD'S :OECtSIONAL llATIONAL AAE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DJSCHARGl! REVIEW llOARD DECISIONAL RATtONALE
,;, ,.·    ,, ,  '	'	<!::

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes wi l l  be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

X - Upgrade Discharge
+ - Change RE code
* - Change Reason and Authority

A	,f
1:.l   tl'J"-<19- !!.-- _ _ /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L'-'-'-"' !?!:..l!.Q1   J'
<  :
'
'

_SYff1;   -	- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

' '	I

'-------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- 	

..;,'.'

lNDcmsEMENT	DATE: 3/1/2006
'.,,,,,.,.......	.	-'.-£..'..LN,,,,,,,. ,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

TO:	FROM:

"'"''"''"	-...:.:..·  MW ""W'"'"" . .:,,.:.,,  ''''''"'''''+"""'""\'-'·-:.;.• ,,   •  ""''"'+''

SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCIC DISCHARGE REVIEW HOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MP 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-2005-00213	

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 on 28 February 2006.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5:  AF Form 102  IG Complaint Registration Exhibit #6:  IG Response dated 5 April 2004
Exhibit #7:  Legal Assistance Letters
Exhibit #8:  Telephone Log dated 23 September 2004 Exhibit #9:  Response to LOR
Exhibit #10:  AETC Form 736 and Response Exhibit #11: Memo from :- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---:
L--------------------------
Exhibit #12:  Two E-mails
Exhibit #13:  Excerpts from the Applicants submission to the AFBCMR Exhibit #14:  Miscellaneous Items
Exhibit #15:  E-mail from 82d Wing JG to AETC JG

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change ofreason and authority for discharge and change ofreenlistment 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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1.  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based upon his chain of  command's erroneous belief the applicant was a homosexual.   Despite this assertion, there is no evidence his discharge was based upon his supposed sexual orientation.  His discharge was based upon his failure in his technical training program and his minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant was medically eliminated from one technical training school, reclassified into the postal apprentice career field and then failed out of the technical training school for that career field.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because he was not allowed to consult with an Area Defense Counsel after receiving Letters of Counseling or Letters of Reprimand.  Even if this were true, it does not create an impropriety in the discharge action.  There is no right to consult with counsel associated with receipt of LOCs or LORs.  The applicant did consult with counsel regarding his administrative discharge from the Air Force.

Issue 3. Applicant contends that upgrading his discharge would remove blockages and allow him to avoid awkward questions when he attempts to secure a better job.  While the DRB was sympathetic to his desire to obtain more rewarding employment, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was found in the course of the hearing.	

Issue 4. The applicant contends that the discharge action was improper because he should  have  been discharged by Sheppard AFB rather than Keesler AFB.   This contention is without merit\
was the appropriate separation authority because the applicant was a student assigned to training detachments.

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