AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·'     -------------------------------·',

Al C

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

''	, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _''

''   -------------- ''·

TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
coi:is . ;\,, NAME OF COIJNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDR SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COllNSEL YES	No
x
.% «<Jp«	VCl11\»mifrftjg    BOARD
MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTl l ER	DENY
'

'''
-	'
''
''

x	*+
x	*+

r->

I-'

r->

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

'
'''	x	*+
''
'''	x	*+
''
'''	x	*+
'

ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A93.01	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A92.22	2	APPUCA TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A93.07	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXI ll HITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECOR DI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

26 Sep 2006	FD-2006-00065
Al>PLlCANT'!llSSt)E·AND, T}lli llOARD'S Dl!CISIONAJ., RATIONAL ARE DISC\JSSllD ON THE ATIACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVll!W BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAtli

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.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

·• ----- ·------------------------------------------------------ '--·----- -------	---·--------------------
''
l'
'
INOORSEMENT	DATE: 101212006
TO:	FllOM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRKl'Al<Y O•' THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW llOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	lJ COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742	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-2006-00065	

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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 26 Sep 2006.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  The request for change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.  The Board grants the requested relief for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.  However, based upon the record and evidence provided by the applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization of discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He further contends that when he  was discharged, he was not a mature adult; he admits that he made mistakes and takes full responsibility for his actions.  He also cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  While the Board was sympathetic to the applicant's concerns and the impact the loss of G.I. Bill benefits were having  on the applicant, it did not consider this a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The Article 15 was for failure to go to appointed place of duty, breaking a no contact order and failure to wear his service dress uniform to the commander's office.  The Letter of Reprimand was for being unable to attend a mandatory alcohol awareness appointment at Life Skills because he smelled of alcohol.  The applicant provided testimony concerning his marital problems and alcohol abuse which led to his administrative discipline and discharge.  Applicant testified that after dating for about a month, he was married while in technical school.  He immediately began to have marital problems and sought counseling.  His wife was assigned to same duty station and knew many of his co-workers.  While applicant was deployed, he received many phone calls concerning his wife's whereabouts and suspected infidelity.  Due to extenuating circumstances, the applicant's commander returned him home from his 90 day deployment after serving only 45 days.  Applicant testified and provided documentation that after his discharge, he was employed as a civilian contractor working for Aerotek at Fort Bragg, NC in which he spent six months in Iraq.  He has
since chosen the electrical trade in which he was employed as a helper and now an apprentice in which he is going to school for an electricians license.   The DRB concluded that the applicant's discharge was too harsh, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's misconduct and his otherwi se excellent duty performance as documented by his Enlisted Performance Reports.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief