AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
I	I	AMN	I	I
TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COIJN$11\ )0; NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRllSS ANll OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YBS	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

.[ ·  ::  '2Jli!!;jf>FTHE .•t:.

---"·

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUF;S	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.90			: 1  EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO' THE'lit!>l\lID A92. 17			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 SUBM!Tl t,U AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMDF:R

02 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00044
•f.""."N'l"S ISSUE AND UlllO'	.(lrl IONAL 11.ATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR fOl\CE 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 wi l l  be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

I::::::::: :··o·-·

.4
2 f 1

a	.;;	Ijj;l llll i:i;:rn;n;;:  Qli: DQ  • DlillllllU;);li:£1Dli:l l:I:

«\/''.(<ffiWS»,	. .	..

I

I	«r/y,   //» ,	INDO	.ENT	DATE: WJ31Z006
TO:	t"ROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi. COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2006-00044	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's, two Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant was administratively disciplined with two Letters of Reprimand and a Letter of Counseling for failures to go.  The applicant had further misconduct and received
his first Article 15 for failure to go to appointed place of duty.  He was punished with a restriction to base for 60 days and restricted from all base facilities that served alcoholic beverages for 60 days.  The second
Article 15 was for being absent from the 51st Logistics Readiness Squadron for eight days, failure to obey an order to report to his First Sergeant, and writing checks with insufficient funds in his account.  He was reduced in grade to airman, restricted to his base for 30 days and restricted from all base facilities that served alcoholic beverages for 30 days.  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.

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