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

TYPE GEN

AB
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AN!> OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COllNS ;L

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x
x x x x

ISSUES

A95.00 AOI.00

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER or NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXlllBIT	UBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HF-ARING DATE	CASE  NllMBllR

17 Oct 2006

FD-2006-00094

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 appl ication to the A FBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY Of THll AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR t'ORCll DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 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-2006-00094	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

The applicant cited his desire to serve once again in the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and three AETC Form 173's for misconduct. The applicant was administratively disciplined with three Letters of Reprimand for driving a privately owned vehicle during Phase 1 and making a false official statement; violating quiet hours in the dormitory, failure
to go, and exhibiting public display of affection while in uniform and lying; failure to have phase card, wearing inappropriate clothing while in Phase 1 and dereliction of duty.  His misconduct was further documented with a Letter of Counseling for making an inappropriate comment to a female Charge of Quarters.  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