AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSA N
.-------------------------------.	.---------------

''   ------------------------------ ''·

A I C	' --------------J'

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
e0;1 NS.ti..	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF'CTHE .BOARD

MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN
'.

UOTHC	OTHER	DEN Y
I

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

.

-:'
''	x

x

-:'
'.
'
--:
'.	x
'-------------------------------------
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A49.00	EXHIBI'.);S SllOMITTED TO THE BOARD
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

HEARING  PATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Jul 2006	FD-2005-00446
APPLICANT'S ISSIJE AND THEBOARtl'S DECtS!ONAL RATIONAL Al\B DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AlR fOF.C;E DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL 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 wil l be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

SlGISMUi.E:..Ql!.BECDMlfJI.. _ .--<'-.•-.L.- ..- ..- -- - ..- ..- ..- .- ..- ..- .]SLGIS4TUBEJlltiBO RR:l&&l>l¥.T- ••- ••- • - ••- ••- ••- ••

INDORSlJ;MENT	DATE:  813/2006
ON.m=N•••-••••• •'• .. . ... ---·-	-"''. '-'···<·'····-·----·-	- -""
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE l'ERSONNl:L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE HEVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150A742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00446	

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. Although not explicitly stated, the applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He states that he was not given the opportunity to retrain and the reason for discharge as an unsatisfactory performer is not justified.  The records indicated the applicant received four Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, a Memorandum for Record, and a Letter of Evaluation for misconduct.  The records also indicate applicant had two End of Course failures.  In reverse order of occurrence, applicant failed two End of Course Exams by scoring 56 and 60, which is below the minimum required passing score of 65.  He failed to complete the Motivational Fl ight course due to substandard performance, failure to accept responsibility for his actions and the inability to comply with training standards.  He received Letters of Reprimand for dereliction of duty and being late for duty on repeated occasions.  He was further counseled for misuse of a government computer and failure to go.	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 req uirements 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