A IR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
NAMF: OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FI RST l\llDDLF: INITIAL)	GRAUE	AFSN/SSA N

.	.

·..--------------------------1..

AB	:-------------- .

---------------------------

.

'

  ---------------	,_

TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME Ot· COliNSH  AN U 01< ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Ot" COUNSEL
YES	No	I
x		--
VOTE OF THE BOARD

M EM BER SITTING

.... ' "' ' '······-	·"·· ·	·'"············--···--
HON	GEN	lJOTHC	OTHER	DENY
-------------------------------- ...	x

.	-

.

.

...	x

..

,	.
...	x

.

....	x
.
..	x
--------------------------------   ·
ISSUF.S	A94.05	INDEX NIJMDER	A67.10	EXHJBITS SUBMITTED TO TH.E BOARD              -·---·"
I	OR!JER APPOINTING THF HOARD
'------- i..--,    --·	--··--
2	Al'f'LICATION FOR R F.VI l'W (ff DIS-·CI I A RG E
3	LETTER Of NOTIFICATION
4	BRI EF OF PERSON N EL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIUNAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE	.._
HEARING IJATE	CASE NUMBER

06 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00057
APPUCANT 1,S .lOl'fAN?:lfl 0AltD'$ DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE A1TACHED AIR FORCE .lSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAl RATIONALE
' ''>	,

Case heard i n Washi ngton, 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 appl ication to the A FBCMR

Names and votes wi l l be made avail able to the appl icant at t he appl icant's req uest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -""" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _L _ - - - - - - - - _..... ,·...-,:; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

'' '''
'     ------------------------------------c--qN;;	--- -----

r - - - - - -   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

'''
'''
-  DATE: 21812001

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY Ot" THE AIR  t'ORCF. PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAi<!>
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31W  t"l.OOR
RANDOLi'! I AFl:l. TX 781 50-4742	ANDREWS AFR, MD 211762-7002

·-	-··-•- r• 	

 	--···--···	-·-···---

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-Y2)	Previous ed ition wi l l be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00057	

GENERAL:  The appl icant 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:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and six Letters of Counseling for miscond uct.  Applicant received an Article 15 for committing the offense of carnal knowledge on divers occasions.  He was punished with a red uction in grade to Airman Basic, forfeited
$200.00 pay, and a reprimand . He had additional miscond uct and was administratively discipl ined for  failure to obey a lawful order on four separate occasions, unsatisfactory performance, financial irresponsibility, failure to go on two separate occasions, and failure to return to work.   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.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good jo b as a police officer.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriatel y characterized his term of service.

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