AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MFMRl'R If .&.'-T J<r'D<;:T Mmnt .F INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN
jTYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW	-

(;Q.l!J' t,h   .  ·.   NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

x x x
x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATJON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMJTTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

04 Jan 2006	FD-2005-00230

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 appli'Bnt's request.

,..J

/
SJ<.N BOARD PRF.SID>'.N'IJ'

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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-2005-00230	

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 sleeping on duty as a Security Forces Journeyman. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for playing video games while on front gate duty. In add ition, he received three Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, two Letters of Admonishment, and was placed on the Control Roster for dereliction  do duty, failure to go, reporting in an unserviceable uniform, disobeying a lawful order, lying and being late for duty. 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. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance  reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate  for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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