AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAMf; OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIA L)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

r·----------------------
' ------------------------ '

;.---- --- --- - - --..

AB

'-- --- --- --- ----·

T\'PJ<: GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

·.'iJM.f li!i\'i!,-	,;;     NAME OF CO\INSF.L AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X*+

X*+ X*+ X*+
------------------------------------ ·	X*+
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX   N\JMBF.R	A67.10	.EXHIBITS SUBMITT.EU"fO THE B6ARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BR IEF OF PERSONNEL FILF
COUNSEL'S RELFASF TO 'II IE flOA RD ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

1l Jan 2007	FD-2006-0011 4
II >	DBClSION,j.L RATIONAi.. AR.I! DISi;USSED ONTHEATIACHRD AIR FORCE DISCHA.F
Case heard i n 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 l able to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.
* Reason and A uthority
+ Reenlistment Code

1

.,....,,,._..a·;i.........""'......... _ • ....:: J._ ....._ •••••••••••• _ .,._ ••••••••••••••••• J ......_ ..._	.........      .......x...............r••••••••••••••••••
1
..
'
'1111...    . .'!'1.	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	-------D--A-T-E-:·112412007

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	f5	cg . F:i.,gA gR

_ro_,	Rs·AA_NF_/DMORL_l3l'lRI AFB, TX 781 50·4742 --------·--··----J-F_RO_M_ :_

SAEN-Dl·RR_ETW-ASR_AYF_OB_, MT-IDIE20A76R2-F70O0R2C_ E_ PE·RSO_N_N_EL__CO__JNCIL-

---------

A:FHQ FORM  0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition wi ll be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REV lEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00114	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeal s for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The appl icant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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, 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 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, a Vacation, and three Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  The applicant received his first Article 15 for being absent from his unit.  He was reduced in grade to Airman, forfeited pay for two months (one month suspended), restriction for 30 days, and a reprimand .  A Vacation action was received for failure to go to appointed place of duty and dereliction of
duty.  He was punished with a forfeiture of pay.  His second Article 15 was for being absent from his unit for fifteen days and violation of a general i nstruction.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic and 14 days of extra duty.  The applicant had additional misconduct and was administrati vely
discipli ned for Phase violations and bei ng l ate for wo rk.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change hi s negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge recei ved by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requi rements of the discharge regulation m1d 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 applicm1t's discharge shoul d not be changed.

Attachment: Exmniner's Brief