AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OJ• SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

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

r ·--------------

'	''

AB	'	'

L	'

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

'
----------------- ·

''	''

TYPE   UOTH	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE QI<'1"HE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	!ION	GEN	UOTl-IC	OTHER	Db:NY

'

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

-:'	'

'

'
'	'.'	x

''

-':'	'.

'

''	'.'	x
---!	'.

'

'''	'.	x
-:	.'

'

''	':	x
L      ..................................................................................
ISSUES	A92.0l	INDEX NUMHlm	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A94.05	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DJSCIIARGE
3	l,ETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S R ELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXH IR ITS SU BM ITTED AT TI M r:Of' PERSONA L APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

10 Aug 2006	FD-2005-00477
Al'PLlCANT'S lSSli!l\"l\Nl1'l'HE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE OISCRAROE REVIEW BOARD DECISTONAL 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 appl ication to the AFBCM R

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

• "1<iY_!l._!e_Qi;:  g9:: M_E;, • .-•••••4"1 •••••• -•••••••••••••••••••••••• JN.!ir:::rn!l R1::!.1!?¥Ji.'.:'! 1    !'J..-·- ......................

'

I	'.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -, -:,1 -·;;7 •- - - ·er c:r ·-iNnoR"s£M£N"-r- -- -- -,- -,--- --- --- ----- --- --- --- ----- --- --- --- "i)Ai-t:-8iiiii o6
·""······'·! ""' "-	-- -----···--- ·--- ..uu• i•=••o "	'" '  ' ' ' •'•'·'"''"""-·"""'··  "-""""" '"""'""'•'•"UM '"''
TO:	Fl<OM:
SAP/MRHR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCI; DISCllARGf: Rf:Vlfi:W BOARD

''·-··

''.··-·-·-··--·---·-'-----·	-·

550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DI{, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78I 50-4742	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-2005-00477	

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

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 and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The Article 15 was for disobeying a lawful "no contact" order and for failing to maintain his base housing unit in a habitable condition.  He was reduced in grade to airman basic and restricted to the limits of Edwards AFB for a period of 45 days.  He also received a Letter of Reprimand for dereliction of duty, larceny, and assaulting his wife. The ORB 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 mi l itary 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 i n the service. The DRB took note of the appl icant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters ofrecommendation and other accompl ishments. 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.

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.

Inview 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