AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

'

-------------------------------- ·
'
-------------------------------!

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN
.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
--------------:

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

 	CJlt!N_SEL·  ----i NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ,A TION
1
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING
------------------------------------ ..
'

-----------------------------------

ADDIU:SS AND OR ORGANIZATION!W COUNSEL

x x x
x x
I

ISSUES

A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A67.l0

A94.05	1	ORDER APPOINTI NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl-IE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXllll31TS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONA L APPEARANCE
TAPE RECOR DING 01' PERSONAi .., A Pl,EARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASt: N UMBER

28 Jul 2006	FD-2005-00383
'S'fS'S AND :J'l<Bl!0•:1:::iJ!$ SU?NAL RArr
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

t'U"'	""" "'' "" · ......

,.,,,., . ..........   ···············

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR

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

.s.1aNktiilii&>F .M.CQIWEB.. ••••• ;:::2_ _ ..i'!'\ • •••• •4........2.......[S.16.Ni\.'IJJ.IU: DJ!Jl.Q 6.Wl.Rf..S1Qfl:n••••••••••••••••••••,
:

'.... ::::- - - - - - - - - - - :·-. :- - - ·, ;.: - - - - - - - - - -==-

j(" - ::::::- - - - - -

-c - - - - - -·:.:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :- -·:: '

:;:;:;; ·,.,,:;·;m:0..·-- ,·.	 	
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE Pl\RSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCllARGt: Rt:V1£W BOARD
13 COMMA ND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMHER

FD-2005-00383	

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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, a vacation, two Letters of Repri mand (LOR's), Unfavorable Information File, two Records oflndividual Counseling (RIC's), dishonored check notification and an arrest for misconduct.  The records indicated the Article 15 was issued because the applicant had a lawful order i ssued to not have his dependent daughter in his dormitory room in which he failed to obey.  The Vacation action was as a result of a lawful order to wear his uniform at all times when on duty no matter where he was working in which he failed to obey.  The appl icant had further discipl inary actions to include LOR's and RJC's for failure to go, an arrest for violation of a restraining order, and dishonored check notification.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  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.

Issue 2. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 26 years of age when the discharge took place. 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