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

·---------------------------- .

·---- ----------

'	'

'	'

'	'	AMN	'	'
---------------------------J	---------------
TYPE   GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATJON	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x

;,	Y,OTE OF TIIE BOARD

····"   ,,'

MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

'	'

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

' '''

'

e..:
'' '

'.	x

'

.'
'.'	x
.'

'	'

.

'''	.'	x

.

e..:	'

'

x

'	'
'
'     -------------------------------- '·
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	,  :, r  [ EXHIBITS SUBMIIpJ) TO THE BOARD.	·. .
A93.0l	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
AOl.17	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
AOl.47	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDrNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

25 Apr 2006	FD-2005-00497
AP.P..L. ICANT'S ISSUJ;: AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RA'.IJONALE	/ .
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

X = Upgrade of discharge, Change of Reason and Authority and Change of RE Code are denied
.S!G!Vil!>FJF,,	r.,, _   •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• hlG-1 -H>JJl.Wlll fSJJ>JN•••• "·.zl...7/...........,.
'.'
'
- - - -, :,; --- ---- ·:·-,,- - ----------"i:Ni5oR.SiM.EN'f "---------•---------- - ---------- - -----••-- - - - "U7Atk "4ii51ioo6'
'y, '.{f,u	,	' •	,  ·.,      '', '	, '	•'

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFB,  TX 78150-4742	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-2005-00497	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 25 Apr 2006. The applicant's father also testified on the applicant's behalf. No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority  for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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. The applicant cited his desire to attend college, earn a commission in the medical field and serve with either the Air Force or the Navy.  The DRB noted the applicant's desires but concluded that his desire standing alone was not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 2.  Although not explicitly stated the applicant suggested that his misconduct was a result of his youth and immaturity.  There is no evidence he did not know right from wrong and although there was some indication from the applicant that communication problems or conflicts with his supervisor existed, the applicant also stated that this did not cause or provide a justification  for his misconduct.  The Board opined the applicant was just as old as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct and concluded that the characterization  of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 3.  The applicant suggested that he did not receive probation and rehabilitation or sufficient command assistance to overcome his difficulties.  The DRB, however, concluded that there was sufficient pre­ processing rehabilitation of the applicant, that the applicant failed to reach out for assistance and that the command otherwise acted appropriately in his discipline and discharge.

Issue 4.  Finally, the applicant stated that the commander's legal review wrongfully stated that he had hit an aircraft on the flight line and failed to report the incident.  The DRB reviewed the case file and saw no other documentation for this incident other than the reference in the legal review and considered the reference to be error.  However, the DRB determined that the error was not prejudicial as it believed that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made.

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