AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

-.

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·' ------------------------------- ·

-·

'

SRA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
:	:

''
TYPE  GEN

YES	No
x

- -
,----PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

'	'
x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

'------------------------- ''
'

'' '
e-:
'
'
'
>-!
'
'
'
'

'

'
'
'

MEMBER SITTING
'

'

'
'
'

'

'
'
'
'

'

'

'

'
'

'

'' '
'

'

'' '
'

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES	A94.05

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10
I

EXHIBITS SUMlTJ:Jijl}J:O.J:llE  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-2005-00500

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.

.srnip,;P.fJllil.CQ.ll.1.lt:J.1.. - - •.d • .S. - - ,,,;!_ - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • LSILUV.f Jl.<llii?.riiiA6tI- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --iNb"6R"s	N"!- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - --- - - - -- - -- - --.•"",i>'AtE':" 812s120

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
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-2005-00500	

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:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He contends that he was brought into OSI, read his rights and finger printed for a crime he did not commit. He contends that his records should only indicate that he received a Letter of Reprimand.  A review of his records indicated he received six Letters of Reprimand (LOR's), a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), a Memorandum for Record (MFR) and a Record oflndividual Counseling (RIC) for misconduct.   His LOR's
were for financial irresponsibility; assault, mutual affray and damage to personal property; being late to work on three occasions; dereliction of duty; and conduct unbecoming of an Air Force member and prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The LOA, MFR, and RIC were for being late for duty on two occasions; leaving detail early without permission; and financial irresponsibility.  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.  Ifhe 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