AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

;.-----------------------:.
----------------------- ·

AMN	r··------------:
-------------- !

TYPE GEN

I	PERSON AL   APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

 	C-O--U.,N_Sli:L_-t   NAME  OF COUNSEL  AND  OR  ORGANIZATION 1
YES	No
x

ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSICL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DEN Y
...-----------------------------------------i ..	X*

.

..

...

.

r:...

.

,.....:
,.....:

..
..

.
----------------------------------------- '

-+-	---j	1--	-t--	-1
X* X* X*
X*

ISSUES

A93.23

INIJEX NUMBER

A67.10

EXHIBITS SUBMlTTl!;,J)'TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOAR D
2	APPLICATION f'OR R EVIEW or DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSON N EL FI LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME or
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECOR DI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Jul 2006	FD-2005-00413
Al'PCICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AllE OISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHEO AIR FORCE DISCHARGE l!AVIEW BOARD DECISIONAI. RATIONALE

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 req uest.

*Reason and Authority

:

• gGJ:iTOO Q. 1n:rtJRD.f.R•• - •-- • /.. • 72..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.J Sl<:il:iniru;_QF.. l!O Dtkr.- ••- ••- ••- ••- ••- ••,
(
:	:
•	•	•    ....  •  •	...	DORSJ!:MtcNT	• DATF:: /31/2006

>----------,------ -      .,, ..
TO:
SAF/MRI3R
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 ANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

'  •••••••••••••••••••••'·········'",   ,,,,,,,,,,.,, =u==, ·•·• -•---  ......	------ • •••  • ·--
FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  Pt:RSONN  :L COIJNCIL AIR FORCE OISCHARGE REVIEW BOARO
1535 COMMAND OR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2005-00413	

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

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 his reason for discharge should have been due to mental health.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand and five Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The Article 15 and Vacation were as a result of neglect to government quarters with damage by the applicant in the amount of $2751 .47 and
failure to go to appointed place of duty.  He was punished with a reduction to airman, 10 days of extra duty and a reprimand.  He received two Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, sleeping on the job, and failure to report to work on time.  He also received Records of Individual Counseling for failure to obey orders, failure to meet training requirements, late reporting to work and failure of his CDC End of Course Pre-test.  The DRB opined that although the applicant was being treated by mental health, it did not impair his ability to know right from wrong or ability to choose the right.  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.

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 foll 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