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

'	'

;------------------------------ 1	----------------
'	'	AMN	'	'
'   ------------------------------ J'	' --- --- -- --- --- J'
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
Co! N'SEh    . ..  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

:;;;; :: ::;:::>J?:t ;<.·······•·<•.· · <	)	VOTE 2F J'  ll;AIID

·• ·   ·

...

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x

----------------------------------- '·'
'
'

'

'
'	x

,

'' '

'	x

'

'

'
,	'

'	x

'
'

,

'

x

'
' '' '
SSUES	A95.00	INDEX NUMBER	A67.00	1 •••••;//\t•//\ ••··...·.·•···	E::!iiHIBITSSUBl\lmll"il:'QTBE   BOARD
AOl.00	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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

21 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00083

· ····· ·· ·····.	. ..

-	......................... ''"·ANU IHl:i .tlU)·. ................. ...·):•:::-•>· r: i .... . n- w •.,,,,,.,_.., ON.THE ATf ACHED AIR fURCE	. .........	··:·:···: , _·:···.· ··..:	. "·.-··-· .
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 will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

.---- --..t:\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,,._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _	1
''	''
''
- - - - - -   - - -   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	- - - - -	.- - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - i - -c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, •·· · .   .·   · .· .. .    .       .	··	.  ,,d	· .· ...·   QRSE	NT	··.·.·..···   \.;! · . · ······	DATE:  12/1 12006
TO:	I   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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00083	

GENERAL:  The applicant 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:

Applicant contends that he has completed the time required to have his discharge upgraded. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's, a Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand, and Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct. The applicant was administratively disciplined for being late for duty, failure to go, and dereliction of duty.  His first Article 15 was for missing the movement of Flight
Mission, failing to follow an order to refrain from using alcohol, and making an official statement with intent to deceive.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman First Class, 45 days restriction, and 45
days of extra duty.  The second Article 15 was for failure to go to appointed place of duty and failure to properly inspect a toolbox.  He received a suspended reduction in grade to Airman and 30 days of extra duty. He received a Vacation for failure to go to appointed place of duty and was reduced 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.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the
appeal.

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