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

I------------------------·I
-----------------------!

AB

I  ••••••••••••••• •1
I	I
I	I
---------------

TYPE  GEN	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

i----....c..·.·o....U...·.N..·S-EL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION        YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

I

----------------------------------------- .
I I

x

:

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x

I I
I
-----------------------------------------

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

.	.···    .::	EXHIBITS   SUBMITTEDTO·TllE   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 DATE	CASE NUMBER

24 Aug 2006	FD-2005-00495
APPLICANT'S lSSUE AND TI$ BOAAP'SDEClSlONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSEIJ ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE 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 will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

-

(	.   .
;'

TO:

SAF/MRBR

- - ...

ORSEMENT

FROM:

DATE: 8/28/2006

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

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

1535 COMMAND DR, 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-2005-00495	

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: Applicant received a general discharge for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. He infers his discharge was too harsh because he was detained in correctional custody and was held without cause. He claims this was stemming from retaliation after he filed an Inspector General  complaint concerning how he was being mistreated, harassed and the difficulties he was having with his credibility. After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by the applicant, the DRB completed a records review and determined the applicant received four Letters of Reprimand (LOR's), an AETC Form 173, Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic  Counseling  and Comments, and  a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for misconduct. In July 1996, the applicant received a LOC for being late to formation twice and talking. This was followed by an AETC Form 173 for failing to shave  and failure to follow instructions. In a three month period beginning August 1996, the applicant received four LOR's for sexual harassment; possession and use of marijuana; missing movement and violation  of  squadron  policy concerning unauthorized visitors in his dormitory room. 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.

Ifhe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If he should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual
evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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