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

..:_ ------------------------ ...

AMN

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-----r

.	.	..

TYPE   GEN	PERSON AL APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
CO\llltiiiE!.	NAME OF COUNSEL ANO OR ORGANIZATION	ADDNE:ss AN[) OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD

.

MEMBER  SITTING	•-Y''"	"'·-··-	·-·""'"''"
---------	.

...

..

_,	...

...

--	..
.

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X*+
X*+ X*+

--->	..

...

.

--	...
!--'---- ---- ---------------	.
ISSlll':S	A94.05	I Nlll':X NllMDl':R	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I	ORDER APPOINTING THE HOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISC! IARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	13RJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S REI.EASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUI3MITTFD AT TIME Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X*+ X*·+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HF

HF.ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

25 Jul 2007	FD-2006-00111
Am.!CANT'S ISSUE AND nm BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED 0Nta6AiTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAROE llHV\Jl\Y,BDA!ltl DECISIONAL RATIO"ljAU!

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 AFBC MR.

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

..
t...	.

'"'

...

....
.

INDORSEMENT

-..•.•.• --.-......,-..•.•.,............-.--..	. "l!  'I'	"'.'I! 'I'!	-·-·"'" ..,..........   •."""'	------ - -- "iiA.i:"i=- 7i3012001
TOo	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRI::TARY OF THI': AIR FORCE PI::RSONNilL COllNCIL
AIR FORCE l>ISCHARGE RRVll':W BOARO

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMANO OR, EI:: WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS Arn, Ml) 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-2006-00111	

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 requested a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and was scheduled for an appearance on 11 June 2007, via video-teleconference between Robins AFB, GA and Andrews AFB, MD, but he did not keep the appointment or call to reschedule.  Therefore, his request was reviewed based upon the record and his submission.

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of 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:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.
He admits that he made mistakes and has expressed a desire for upgrade of discharge so that he may reenlist into the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand, six Letters of Counseling, and six Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant was administrativel y disciplined for being late for duty on numerous occasions, arriving to work in the wrong uniform, failing the Weapons Safety portion of the Quality Control exam, failure to go, missing dental appointments, dereliction of duty, and taking apart a loaded M-9 weapon in the guard gate.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's 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