AI R FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

'" • •••.- ,,., """"'r"' M"'MQ.,11 11 A <.:T   1<1R <;T Minni .F INITIAi,)

1------- ·- --

GRADE

SSGT

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME (ff COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA TlON

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

x +*

x +*
x +*

ISSUES

A93.11 A92.0l A93.07 A93.09

JNDF.X NUMBF.R

A67.10

I	ORDER APPOINTTNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION

x +*
x +*

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASF: NUMBF.R

13 Feb 2006

FD-2005-00321
BOARD'S  DECISIONAL

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 Af'BCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

+ Change RE Code
* Ch	e Reason and Authorit

TO:

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

INDORSEME)iiT

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCF; PERSONNF.L COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW llOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD Z0762-700l

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00321	

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and auth01ity for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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,  change  of  reason   and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of reenlistment 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:  .

I .  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the
appl icant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and a civilian court conviction for misconduct. The misconduct included disobeying a lawful order by having contact with a woman not his wife, making unauthorized non-official purchases on his government travel card in the amount of $2896.00, a civilian court conviction for false reporting, failure to provide adequate support for his wife and children, and involvement in inappropriate relationships with the spouses of other squadron members.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board discussed the financial and family problems that the applicant stated he was having at the time of his discharge. 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.

2.	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 and other accomplishments.  The Board found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The DRB concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

3.	The ORB recognized the fact that the applicant had served twelve years total service before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time in the
Air Force.  The Board noted the applicant was entitled to request an administrative discharge board, but waived this right.

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