AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MKMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDU:INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

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

AIC

·'   -------------·'

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

x x x
x x

ISSUES

A93.07 A94.05 A92.17

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

ORDER APPOI NTING THE BOARD
2	APPUCA TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTiflCA TJON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDJTIONAL E   HIBITS SUBMl'ITED AT TIME Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Sep 2006

FD-2006-00015

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 subm it an application to the AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

Sl.l<N.\1	8J::CQUQ - ..... --------2'-------"'1--------ll------------] SJJ.RJUlF..UQ uruwgDf. r_..1.. _ _ _ _ _ --------------,

SAf/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF nu: AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCii, AIR ;"ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
loJ COMMANll DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD W762- 7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00015	

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 di scharge. 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 contends that he should not have received the Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to escort Third Country National employees to ensure they exited the base and while assigned as a sentinel, left his post before being relieved.	The records indicated the applicant received two Article  15's and a Vacation for misconduct.  The first Article 15, as stated above for being derelict in the performance of duty, the applicant was punished with a reduction in grade to senior airman and received a suspended forfeiture of pay.  The second infraction was a Vacation action for driving under the influence resulting in forfeiture of $945.00 pay for two months.  He also received an Article  15 for the driving under the influence in which he was punished with a reduction in grade to airman first class and a reprimand.  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.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  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.

The applicant further stated his desire for an upgrade in rank to senior airman. The DRB took note and does not have the authority to reinstate a previously held grade.  The applicant's only recourse would be to submit a request for consideration to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.

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