AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
l  lTIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSA N	I

_TYP-E  G_E N---  .	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
1
1--c-o_v..N._SE_L_-I NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANll.ATION
YES	No
x

AB
x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7.ATION m- COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.01

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

1	OR DER APPOINTING TllE BOARD
2	APPLICA TJON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDlTlONAL EXH I BITS SUBM ITTED AT TIM E OF PERSONA L APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONA L APPEARANCE
>-----------------+----·-·· ----·--------------+--+---------- ·----------
HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00337

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 applicant's request.

,J	/
r

TO:	FROM:
SAF/M RBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TllE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR  FORCE PISCllARGE  REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MJ) 20762·700?

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00337	

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 that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The records show that the applicant received two Article l 5s, two Letters of Reprimand, and four Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  The misconduct included disorderly conduct, disrespect to a
non-commissioned officer, disobeying a lawful order, traffic violations, failure to follow a direct order, failure to properl y follow the chain of command, and wearing an earring while in unifonn.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took pl ace.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant 's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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