AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

..

AFSN/SSAN

':----------------------------- ':
---------------------------- ·

.-- - - - - - - - - - - - -
AB	'	'
--------------

TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
I	-----'-	-+-_,			,
I	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92. 15 A92.21 A94.05 A92.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

15 Nov 2006	FD-2005-00403
APl'LICANT'.S.lS$ 1.1E AND TflliiBQAllD'SPECISIONAL RATIONAL AIU\ DISCUSSiil>-ONTHE. ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCI-!AROE REYJJlW ilOA!\l.)DECISIONAL RATIONALE
• < >  >	>	·.
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, 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.

.··

>t-it---."-·-.-- --- -.	ii-

.. . D--O-R-S--E-l\1--$N- -iJ-;.-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - :..::.. .-- -.. . -.. -..- .-.-...·.-.- ;  - - - - -

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00403	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Travis AFB, CA, via video-teleconference with Andrews AFB on 15 November 2006. The following witness observed the hearing but did not testify on the applicant's behalf: Msr_·_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_·_; mother.

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. Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He further stated his discharge was due to a misunderstanding concerning his possession of a valid motorcycle license. The records indicated the applicant received a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. He received an Article 15, a Vacation, four Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, three Records oflndividual Counseling and an AETC Form 125A for misconduct. The applicant was administratively disciplined for failure to comply with dress and appearance standards, failure to report to a mandatory formation, making a false official statement, failure to shave, being disrespectful to an NCO, improper wear of his uniform, unexcused absence, failure to obey an order, and failure to keep his room in inspection order. He had further misconduct and received an Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, failure to remain within the limits of Sheppard AFB, TX, and failure to wear the appropriate uniform while in Phase I. He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, forfeited $500.00 pay which was suspended, and 21 days of extra duty. He received a Vacation to his Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of duties by failing to eat breakfast at the prescribed time. On April 1, 2004, the applicant was eliminated from technical school training for failure to meet military standards. He had numerous occasions in which he had been verbally counseled and administratively disciplined for failure to conform to military standards. 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 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, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, has a good job and continuing with his education.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.	

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