AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAMF: OF SERVICE M:MBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
I	I	AMN	I	I 	
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
..     NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COliNSEL

\'ES	No
x

.. ·	. .......	(/ ;...... './/??'?<••·•?'•'' ..
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

ISSIJES	A92.0l	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

l>'>':>':»>; ·l.t1.N

!HIBl'.1;$••stmmttEl> TO mE BOARD	. ... . ... .·.• ·

A94.05	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 DATE	CASE NUMBER

02 Nov 2006	FD-2006-001 12
IT'S-···---·--.,	Ke	·-·--	::,...	.;
Case heard in Washington, 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 AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made avai lable to the applicant at the applicant's request.

:

d		<			,

1.

I	...
,.	INDORSEMENT	t:':.','..<!(-k· ,,

I
l>ATE: .·.11/1312006

'• ·.:··,:>;../:-<

.,
••,'',,)  >

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

Sl'CRHAR\' OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOA RO
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40	15J5 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, JRll FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANOREWS AFB, MO 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-2006-001 12	

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, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's, a Vacation, five Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and four Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant was administratively disciplined for being late for work, failure to go, failure to obey direct orders, striking an aircraft with a speed handle and being disrespectful to an NCO.  His first Article 15 was for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He received a suspended reduction to Airman, thirty days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  The Vacation action was for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was reduced in grade to Airman.  His second Article 15 was for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for negligently failing to follow a Technical Order (failed to document maintenance performed on an aircraft). He received a suspended reduction in grade to Airman Basic and restricted to the limits of Seymour Johnson AFB for thirty days.  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