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

''-------------------------''	AB
------------------------ ·

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

''	''

"-- - - - - - - - - - - -'

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
.·:/;,·. .<::OUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
..:V<)i'Fj9l'.TBE BOA:RD
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x

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

'

''
-:

'

'

''	x

x

--:
' ''

x

--':
' ''
--':
'''	x
-------------------------------------
ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUMBER	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUBM;ITTED TO THE BOARD
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 DA TE	CASE NUMBER

21 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00104
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AN!) THE BOAJU>'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE O!SCHAROE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
..
"''·
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.

,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'

''' ''
------------------------------- ·-----------------------------c-------cz--------------------------------
INDORSNT	DAT: 12/812006
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, JRD 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-2006-00104	

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 submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's, a Vacation, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant was administratively disciplined for dereliction of duty and missing dental appointments.  His first Article 15 was for driving under the influence of alcohol.  He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, performed 45 days of extra duty and a reprimand.  His second Article 15 was for altering a leave form.  He received a suspended reduction in grade to Airman Basic, forfeited pay for two months, performed 45 days extra duty and a reprimand.  The Vacation action was for failure to go.  This action resulted in his reduction in grade to Airman Basic.  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