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
COUNSlilL	NAME OF COliNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COLINSEL YES	No
x

;	I•    ' i,;·.

VOTE   OF·  :-BOAJID	, % ;;;;,<;,•;,::;,.
>	'<  , ,	, ,...,L ,....... -"'""...:',::it ;tf:0.:..'l..l:".: L	.......,.

MEMBER SITTING

-

-
-
-

"'-'"""'
I-I	ON	GEN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES	A92.01	INDt:X NUMBER	A67. 10	II   Jlil  IJ}JVl'l'dITTEl) THE BOARD
A94.05	1	ORDER APPOI NTI NG Tl IE BOAR D
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  I IE

HEARING DATE	CASI> NUMBER

02 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00098
APPLICJT'S ISSUI! AND THll ll!lAl\D'S DllJJ laNllAtlONAI.. Ad OISCUSS1>1;m.>N''•t1ll ATfACHED AIR fORCl! DISCHAROE REVIEW llOARD DECISIONAi, RATIONALE

Case heard in Washi ngton, 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.

cHo.- = z	:

, , \       I°"""":;·:-,/;'_£>:- ;<;> :::	I

·>*t t::   I
,,,,,	"'

o
'  t »,, : ,'

j,O	DATE: "1111312006

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, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB,  TX  781504742	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-2006-00098	

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:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, the applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's, three Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, a Record of Individual Counseling and two Memorandums for Record for
misconduct.  The applicant was administratively disciplined for losing his military identification card on four separate occasions, financial irresponsibility, and dereliction of duty.  He had further misconduct and  received his first Article 15 for failing to keep his dorm room in good order.  He was reduced in grade to Airman First Class and received 30 days of extra duty which was suspended.  His second Article 15 was for failing to obey an order from a Security Forces member to return to his dormitory room, argued with provoking speeches and gestures.  He received a reduction in grade to Airman and fourteen days of extra duty.  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.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.   They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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