AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN		
AMN	I	I	

NAM ; OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDU: INITIAL)
I	I
TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAMF; OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSl!:L
YES	No
x
I    I	''VO'J:IE OFTHE BO-ARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

X*+
ISSUES	A93.0I	INDEX NUMBl!:K	A67.10	: :,EXHIBIT$li	ED  )?	BOARD	I ',,
I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW or DISC HA RUE
3	LETTER or NOTir!CATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASF.  NUMDl!:R

17 Oct 2006	FD-2006-00063
AJ')'UCANT'S ISo;m BOAAD'S DECISIONAL l\A'tl()J•l  IU! UlllCUSSlll! ; <');'W"ACHllD AIR FORCE DlSCHAROE REVIEW BOARD J)flClSIONAI. RATIONALE

Case heard i n 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 wil I  be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

/)	,,
SIGNATirlllF; OF RECORDER	,, ,	//	/	"" TllRE OF BOARD PRESIDENlr
I
>' \   '<	""JNDORSEMENT	DATE:    10123/2006
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, 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

CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00063

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE

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 was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contai ns 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:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes
he made when he was young and immature.  He also cited his desire for upgrade of his discharge to allow for reenlistment into the armed forces.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.
The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, and a Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct.   In reverse order of occurrence, the applicant received four Letters of Reprimand for failure to follow orders, tampering with a fire alarm and setting off a false alarm, failing a dorm room inspection and sleeping on duty.  He had further misconduct documented by a Record of Individual Counseling for misplacing an Apex tool.  Finally, through his own neglect, applicant missed the movement of two scheduled aircrafts deploying for Aviano in support of Operation ALLIED FORCE.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to airman.  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.

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