AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVIO: MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
r ·------------------------- ·
:	:
--------------------------!

GRADK

AB

AFSN/SSAN
:·--------------·:
--------------- :

TYl'E GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

;f1'!$11it.	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
-1         YE-s--="' --No--
I	x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COIJNS L

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x x x

SSIJES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

x x
EXHIBITS   SUBMlTIED  TO THE'™l?	:: if'

L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - -·

A93.01 A92.01 A92.03 A94.05

A67.90
A67.05	ORDER APPOINTING THE 130ARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
A DDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Jul 2006	FD-2005-00358

Case heard in 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.

X - Upgrade, Reason and Authority, and RE Code
_ _ _ c:(?;, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ e:;;:::_ _ _ _ _ _	--------------------------------------------------------------
''	''

l/:

INOORSEMENT

DATEI 10/17$a:
o,\  <,«'\i'

1U:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TllE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORC DISCHARG Rl:VIEW BOARD
1535 COMM ANO DR, I!: WING, JRD l-'LOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00358

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable and change the reason and authority 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 and 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.

ISSUE: Applicant received a General discharge for Pattern of Misconduct--Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline

In Issues 1 and 8: Applicant contends his conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency ratings were mostly good that he received a rating of "3" and was considered for promotion, on his third EPR he received a rating of "2" because of two isolated minor offenses which resulted in an Article 15. Records indicate that during his last rating period the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand for being late for duty (three times), disobeying an order to refrain from smoking in his dorm room (applicant was counseled three other times on the same infraction) and failure to go to appointed scheduled appointment with his first sergeant because he overslept. The culmination of the misconduct was the Article 15 he received for again disobeying an order not to smoke in his dorm room. The records also indicate that applicant received a second Article 15 for an incident during the same reporting period for disobeying an order not to have children living in his dorm room. The Board concluded that the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and that the characterization of the discharge was appropriate.

In Issues 2 through 6 applicant states that he: 1) completed all career development courses with average scores, acquired specialty or skill level for his AFSC, and completed various other training events which were beneficial in his performance of duties; 2) he deployed to support OPERATION SHINING HOPE; 3) he was an active support of base and local events; and 4) received several awards and decorations. The Board took note of the accomplishments of the applicant as documented in the record and evidence provided, but found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of these accomplishments. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

In Issues 7 and 10 through 12 applicant contends that: 1) he completed a full four-year term of service and that his characterization should have been honorable; 2) basis for his discharge was unjust and inaccurate of his military service and conduct; and 3) he was not presented with the opportunity to participate in probation and rehabilitation. The records indicate that in addition to the already mentioned misconduct the applicant received eight Letters of Reprimand (LOR), a Letter of Admonition (LOA), three Letters of Counseling (LOC) and three Records of Individual Counseling (RIC) for misconduct to include late for duty (five times), dereliction of duty (three times), two failure to obey a lawful order, and four incidents of failure to maintain standards for performance of duty, and a failure to go. The Board found that through these administrative actions-3-RICs, 3-LOCs, I -LOA, 12-LORs, and two Article 15s-the applicant had ample

opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the characterization of the discharge appropriately characterized the applicant's term of service.

In Issue 9 applicant contends he was young and immature-through his enlistment he was learning new things sometimes the hard way. The Board considered the applicant's contention but opined that there are many other airmen who are young and immature yet manage to avoid serious misconduct throughout their term of service thereby earning an honorable discharge. The Board found this an unpersuasive basis for re­ characterization of the discharge; the record reflects that the applicant was given numerous opportunities to improve. The characterization of the discharge was found to be appropriate.

In Issue 13 applicant states he has been a good citizen since his discharge. The Board was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and had a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in the discharge was suggested or found in the course of the records review. The Board concluded that the misconduct of the applicant was appropriately characterized.

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