,------------------------------------------------------------,
i	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

I	ITIAL)
!
I
I

!
GRADE

AlC

·: GFN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

,	o_N_s_E_ _.... ,'\. \ IE OF ('OL':<.SEL Ai\ D OR ORGAi\IZATIO:<.

x

ADDRESS A:\0 OR ORGA:'i!Z.\TIO:'<i OF C'OUi\SEL

..	VOTE OE THE BOARD

MEM BER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTllC

OTHL'.R	DEN Y
x

x x x
x
·-------·---  -------;----------------------+-----L------'----_J -  --'	1

,\9-t53

I  l"DE.\ :<.l   IHER	A67.10	EXHIBITSSUBMIITED TO THE BOARD
1	OR DLR APPOli'<TIN(i THE BOARD
2	APPLICATIOi'< FOR REVlf'W OF DISC! IAR(iE
3	LEn'Ef{ OF NOTIFICATION

!	I

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNLL FILI: COUNSEL'S RELEASE ro Tl IF BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED Al TIMI. OF
I	I	•/	PERSONAL   APPFARANCF

rI llJ

!
\J(i'\   -;l ----.-----	';E 'iL\lJU:k

TAPE RECOR DING OF PERSONAL Al'l'l:AR ANCI'

n rk r.   oos	----'l_F_D_-z_o_o_s_-0_0_2_3_3	_,	._	-,....,. 	
I  ,\!'I'I :r  \t• i '(y;L:i· i.if) r.i: llOl\IUJ'S DE( ISIONr\I. l\Ar!ONAL .'\l{L DlCUSEI) ON Tl II' AITN'llloH ,\JR FOIKE DIS<11ARGE REVIEW llOl\RD DECISIONAL RATION/ILi'	1
'
i C:1sc hea rd a t Wash i ngton , D.C.
I
l Ad v ise appl ica nt  of  t he decision  of t he Boa rd, t he right  to a personal  appea rance wi t h/wit hout  counsel, and t he right  to
f   ..; u hrn i t  an applicat i on to t he AFBCM R.
i
! Na me a nd voles w ill he made availa ble to t he applicant at the applicant"s request.
I

;j

f	F

I
I
I	------------
1---.-. ....-...-..-. --------.,,.....,:::::.....-..----_ -----_J	-

r·-

r_ - - - --"- -----"-- /"' 	

-	DORS	EJ\	--r--_:·	--------- D_!A_T_E: 12/29/2005
! i (\:	-	FROM:	·-  -----------
S.\F 'v1 R llR	YD:c.:;:ikk	·  p     1rii\EL cou-;nL
:' '=,!) \  ST!·U .i:T Wi·S I'_ SlilTF 40	15.15 COMMA-;D OR. EE WING..\RD FLOOR
l./..\ \;f)()J.I'! I:\l·B. TX  7'>1.'0-..\74"	A!'IDREWS AFB.MD 20762-7002

l	__

AHH.) FORM 0-2077. JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edi tion will be used

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	FD-2005-00233

GEN ERAL: The appl icant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The appl ica nt was offered  a personal  appearance before the Discha rge Review  Board  (ORB) bu t declined  to exercise t h is right.

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

FIN DINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The  Boa rd  fi nds  that  nei ther  the  evidence  of  record  nor  t hat  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an i neq u i ty or impropriet y t hat would justify a change of discha rge.

lSSlJ E:  Appl icant recei ved a General Discharge for Miscond uct	Minor  Discipli nary  Infractions

Appl icant contends t hat for one of his instances of misconduct he was called and ordered to d u ty to attend a class \N hcn the date had not been clearly specified , t hat he had not slept for over 24 hou rs, and regrettabl y mack comments over the phone that he should not have made, and that he made the mistake of marryi ng
snmcone pregnan t \\t ith someone else's child that he had known for only two mon ths, tha t she was bi-pol ar and u nst able, made t hreats on his l ife and frequentl y called his First Sergeant to make false claims, that
i ncide n ts she created led to police bei ng called on more than one occasion, and tha t these incidents affected h is w ork, fina nces, and health. The Board was sympathetic to the issues submi tted by the appl icant;
h uwe ver, neither are a m atter of ineq u ity or impropriety w hich would warrant an u pgrade. The records
i nd ica ted the applicant received an Article  15 for fail u re to go at the time prescri bed to his appointed place of d u t y and for being d isrespectf u l in language to an NCO, a Vacation of Suspended Reduction in Grade for
fa i l u re w go at the t ime prescribed to his appointed place of du ty, a Lette r of Reprimand for lying to his OIC,
and two Letters of Cou nsel ing, one for fail ure to go and one for failing to report to work as schedu led.  The OR B opined tha t  t hrough these admin istrative actions, the applicant had ample opportu nities to change his nega t ive behav ior.  The Board concl uded the m isconduct was a significant departure from cond uct expected of all m i li ta ry mem be rs.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applica nt was found to be
appropria te.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discha rge Review Board concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the proced u ral ;ind substan tive req u irements of the discharge regulation and was withi n the d iscretion of  the discharge au thori ty and tha t the appl icant was provided full administrative due process.

I n v iew of the foregoi ng find ings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equ itable basis for u pgrade of discharge, th us the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

At ta chmen t: Exam i ner's Brief