AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

...

NAME OF SERVJO:MEMBER (LAST, FI RST MIDDLE INITIAL)
---------------------------- ·
'
--------------------------- ·

G RADE

AMN

A FSN/SSAN

''	''

;-----------------
'" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·

TYPE GEN

Yl£S	No
x

PERSON AL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAM!£ m·COUNSF;I., AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  o·COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTI NG
.--------------------------------------
'	'

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DFNY
x

x x x
x
'	'
-------------------------------------- ·

ISSUF:S

A94.05

INDEX  NUMBlm	A66.00

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL f!LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAi. EXHJRITS SURMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

llF:ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

10 Aug 2006	FD-2005-00440

  ATl!!XCflElY AJR'!IO!lCE''til$CHARGE   REVleW 	

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 appl ication to the AFBCMR

Names and votes wi l I   be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

,. ,Y_N_AJ:l1. !?!'. <;'.ql3!1!;t- _ _ _ _.. _ _._ _ .A._ _ _ _ _ _ _ • A._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • L! " A 1:,1!.1!_1£ !?fJl. '! 1!lf ll:J. _ _ _

_ _ _ _. : ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •••••••••••••

'	'
'

TO:

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

SF:CRF:TARY 01' THE AIR FORCI': PF:HSONNF:l. COUNCii. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND UR, El£ WING, 3RU FLOOH ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762·7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous ed ition wil l be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00440	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but decl ined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains availabl e 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. Appl icant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received three Article 15's for misconduct.  The first Article 15 was for leaving the scene of an accident.  His punishment was suspended reduction in grade to airman and forfeiture of pay.  His second Article 15 was for derelict in the performance of duties in that he failed to refrain from providing alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, and for being disorderly.  He received a suspended reduction in grade to airman first class, forfeiture of pay, and restriction to Minot AFB for 45 days.  His third and final Article 1 5 was for driving under the influence of alcohol and wrongful use of marijuana.  As a result, he was reduced in grade to airman.  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.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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