AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

YES	No
x

AB
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x
x x x
x

·. t	. .. ....,,
1	
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
3	
t·  ,f.	•    •· .;:		COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE

15 Dec 2005

CASE NUMBER

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicanJ<S.f the;dJision 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.

550 c snlEET WEi, SUITE 40 RANLPH	B, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE WISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

:Fn-2oos-oohs	

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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for assaulting his wife and for damaging a wall in base housing. He also received three Letters of Reprimand and seven Records of Individual Counseling for various acts of misconduct to include failure to return to duty, failure to obey instructions, bringing a weapon (BB Gun) into the work center and placing it to the temple of another airman, late for duty, dereliction of duty, unacceptable duty performance, speeding, violating a no-contact order, and assaulting his wife. 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