AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
I	AMN	I	I
TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
CO!JNSl!lL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
:]\i'.fii<' <>!\]fi:r..:m; OF '111Ml0ARD

MEMBER SITTING

S.iL.<"""""<"W<W-«
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X"+

X*+

X*+ X*+

ISSUES	A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUBMrfTED TO 'DBE<B(\t1'iRD
A93.0I	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPUCA TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONA L A PPEARANCE

X"+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Oct 2006	FD-2006-00081
APPl.ICANT'S ISSUE ANO Tlil$'80AJUl'S DECISIONAi. RATIONAL ARI\ DISCUSllO ON THE Art Aq-IEO A!Rf:Q/tC.E DISCJ:IAROll REVlllW 80i>JU)J.ll!CJ$l0)lL RATl(iNALl!
s:,,·.·.	,  ,·,d/    1\,<,·\ ,	nK:?'.N	\f:\-' > ;r7;'·'.--.· · ·	1	·- --	i ·
Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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 will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment  Code

SJGNATilRi OF BECOBQER
I

(

,;	I'"'''''"'  '°""'""''"'"'-"	I

> "f«\< , ,

w0	;

TN '

;',-./

DATE: 1012312006

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40	15J5 COMMAND OR, EE WING, JRD Fl.OOR
RANDOLPJI  AFB, TX  78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00081	

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge, change ofreason 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:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, the applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when he was young.  The applicant also cited his desire to serve once again in the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and a Letter of Admonishment for misconduct.  He received an Article
15 for underage drinking and failing to refrain from using alcohol while on a six-ring alert.  He was punished with a suspended reduction in grade to airman, forfeiture of pay, and 15 days of extra duty.  The Vacation action on his reduction to airman was for failure to go.  Prior to applicant's Article 15, he was administratively disciplined for leaving assigned duties without authority, financial irresponsibility, and a civilian arrest for failing to pay traffic tickets.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  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 job.  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 appropriately characterized his term of servi ce.

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 fu11 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