1,_

· '-- -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -------- -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -     ---,
A_IR_FO__R_C_.E_DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
-  .	ITIAL)	GRADE

AMN
1---------------------------------1----.-------------------------

TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	I

RECORD REVIEW

l-------+-------'---------------------------1-----+-----------------·-·---

,	c_o_U_N_SE_L-'---<   NAME   OF  COUNSEL   ANO  OR  ORGANIZATION
YES	No

HON	GEN

x

AlJlJRESS ANI> QR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

1----- -

MEMBER  SITTING	1------  "

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

x
x
-----------+--    -----1----+--- --+·---+	I
x
x
---------------------------· ---  f---- -----'--- ---'----  --------'- --

ISSllES

A93.0l A94.05

INl)F:X N UMllF;R

A67.05

1-----r---EXme1TS   SUBM-IT-TED-TO -TJ'-JE-B'--Q"-',-l-'-\RD-' '   ' '----
2	
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	I .ETTER OF NOTI FJCATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COllNSEL"S RELEASE TO TH E BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXH IBITS SUBMITC_T_F_.D_A_T_T_IM_E_O_F	I
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING l>ATf	CASE NllMBER

25 Jan 2006	FD-2005-00280
APPLICANT'S  ISSUE AND THE. BOARl)"S OJ'!CISIONAL  RATIONAL  ARE  DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED  AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD  DECISIONAL  RA'.flONALE ·

Case heard at Wash i ngton, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board and the right to subm it an appl ication to the A FBCM R.

Names and votes w i ll be made ava i labl e to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

-

...,
'

>---- ---------·--·-··- -··---,,,.
TO:
SAFf MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH Arn. TX 78150-4742

-

fNDOh.SEMENT

FROM:

.  DATE:   112112006
···-·-----	----
SCRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE lJISCHARGE REVIEW llOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31{[) FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, Mil 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous ed ition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00280	

GENERAL:  The appl icant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the d ischarge, and to change the reen l istment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via videoconference at the Fl orida State Armory, with DRB del i beration held at And rews AFB on 25 Jan 2006. The fol lowing witness also testified on the appl icant's beha lf: Ms	the appl icant's fiancee.

Add itional exh i bits and evidence presented  at the hearing:  None

The attached brief contai ns avai lable perti nent data on the appl icant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FINDINGS: U pgrade of d ischarge, change of reason and authori ty for d ischa rge, and change of reenl istment code are den ied.

The Board finds that neither the ev idence of record nor that provided by the appl icant substantiates an ineq u ity or impropriety that wou ld justify a change of d ischarge.

ISSUE:  The  appl icant  subm itted   no  written   issues  for  the  Board 's  consideration.   However,   in  testimony,  the appl icant ad m itted committi ng the offenses that resu l ted i n h is d ischarge, citi ng h is youth and immaturity at the time, wh i le  expressi ng  a  desire  re-en l ist  i nto  m i l itary  service.    Specifica l l y,  t he  appl icant  testified  that  he  was  easily  i nfl uenced by others. bel ieved to be his friends, i nto com m i tting the offenses. The appl icant was discharged on 22 Decem ber 2004 wit h a Genera l characterization of service, for a pattern of m iscond uct - conduct  prejudicial  to good order and d isci pl i ne.  The appl icant recei ved one Letter of Reprimand  (LOR) on 20 August 2004, for a civilian arrest for the theft of an item (television set) va l ued  bet ween  $50 and $500 dol l ars, one Record  of Ind ivid ual Counsel ing on 20 September 2004 for fai l u re to go at t he time prescri bed to h is appointed place of duty (Bay Orderly), followed by a Art ic le 1 5, on 25 October 2004, as the defin it ive non-jud icial action for absenti ng the aforementioned place of d uty i n order to transport a fellow airma n to Mex ico and to thereafter,  i n a clandesti ne man ner, retu rn himself back to his place of d uty. In response to the appl icant's  LOR,  he offered  an explanation  of the plan  devised  by  his friends for him  to steal a television ut i l izing an old recei pt from a prev ious l i ke purchase. The appl icant testified that he was the only person arrested for the crime, i n that he elected not to d ivu lge the names of other partici pants  i n the scheme.  For the appl icant's Articl e 1 5, he testified that he and a co-worker bel ieved that they had damaged  a government vehicle while traversi n g the grou nds of Camp Bu i Iis, Texas, and t hat t h rough t heir bel ief of getting into serious trou ble, one airman decided he wou ld escape the conseq uences by going to Mexico; which the appl icant agreed to facilitate by driving the escapee-owner of the means  of transportation,  and  later retu rn ing h imsel f to CON US.  The Board  acknowledged  that the appl icant had recei ved a favorable 8mont h tra i n i ng report, dated 23 November  2004.  The Board was also pleased to note that since the  appl icant's d ischarge he has met a you ng lady with whom  he plans to one day marry  and that they joi nt l y part icipate i n counsel ing and church activities on a regu lar basis. However, the Board believed that the positi ve aspects of the appl icant's m i l itary service and post-m i l itary  activities  arc  far  outweighed  by  the  negative aspects of his m i l itary service.

CONCL USIONS: The Discharge Review Board concl udes that the d ischarge was consistent  with the proced ural and substantive req u irements of the d ischarge regu lation and was with i n the d iscretion  of the d ischarge authority and that the appl icant was provided fu ll ad m i n istrative d ue process.

I n view of the foregoi ng find ings the Board  further concl udes that there exists no  legal or equ itable basis for upgrade of d ischarge, thus the appl icant's d ischarge shou ld not be changed.

At tachment: Exam i ner's Brief