AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SEl{VICE M};MBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I NITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSA N

.-------------------------- .

:--------------.

''	''

AB	-------------:

i---------------------,----------,------------------------------.---,-.--------_,_----------

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL       APPEARANCE	x	I

RECORD REVIEW

 	c_O")'tN_$_11L	NAME OF COUNSF,1, A Nll 0 ORGANIZATION	AllllRSS AND  OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSM.
1
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THJ>BOARD
"· '·'·'··'··········· ···----- -----· ...,	···"---	---- ... ·" . ···············---

MEMBER SITTING

'

---------------------------------- '
'

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DEN Y

X*+

':--·----------------+-----+-----+------+----+	I

''' ''

----------------------------------   '

X*+

X*+ X*+

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR R EVIEW OF DISCHA RGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		HRIEF OF PERSONNEL Fl l.E COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO HIE BOARD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEA RANCE

TAPE RECOR DING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

11 Jan 2007	FIJ-2006-00105
APPL!CANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISION'}L RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED Allt fOltCli OJSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD Dl:CJSIONAL RATIONAl,E

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 A FBCMR

Names and votes wil l  be made avai l able to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

.u;!'W"iiJ: Q.F ll.OCQl!.llt;n. •••• A. - •• - .2!..- .- ..-..-..-..-....-..-..-..fal(;l".:'Jli f_O.f.JlMM.ilf!Wl! r:lU•• - ••- ••••- ••- ••-
'''
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "- - - - v - -"C ;i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - -,-r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - - - - -

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFl3, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY  OF THI: AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOAIHI
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 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  RATlONALE	CASt: NUMBER

FD-2006-00105	

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 appeara nce before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the appl icant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change or
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, appl icant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He has expressed a desire for upgrade of his discharge to allow for reenlistment into the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's for misconduct.  The first Article 15 was for receiving an order to report to Bolling AFB Clinic for a urinalysis and failed to report; and for making a false statement that he reported for the uri nalysis testing.  He was punished with a reducti on in grade to Airman.  His second Article 15 was for fai lure to go to appointed place of duty; and for making a
false official statement with intent to deceive.  He was disciplined with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the appl icant 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 contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young . The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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 equ itable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief