AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVI EW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I NITIAL)	GRAD;	AFSN/SSAN

I	AMN	I
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YS	I	No
I x
VOTE OF'IllE BOAJ.Utl:W01\	.:;i;, .

MEMBER SIITING

""'-"'"''"'"""  ····-·-·-··-··
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x
lSSUS	A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A60.00	··t '	ltXJUUlTS 111·	J:'TED TO TUE BOARD
AOl.43	1	ORDER APPOINTING Tfl E BOARD
2	APPLICATLON FOR R EVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TlON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TI 1 : BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXIIIBITS SUBMITTED AT TlME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING   DATE	CASE NUMBER

12 Oct 2006	FD-2006-00123

·

APPLICANT'S 1$$1)£ AND'Ttl QOARD'S Dll ION/\Y.RATil)NA!, Al\fl DlSCU$$l!I) ON THI! ATTACHl!O  JR FORCE l;ll$CHAOll' Rl!VlllW llQAIUl DECISIONAL RATIONALE	.......	.:;
Case heard in Washington, D.C..

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board at Andrews A FB, Maryl and, but fai led to appear or notify the board.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

X - Upgrade, Reason and Authority and RE Code

S 1CN ,,.,., 1 YL' OF d rwy	Cl

I			I"'"" L,'  W H'HHn eedr	n     	

z  ,z ---..
I	I

.. )DP.!J:  ···t.

. ,.. ;,,,

')",_,·!	DA1'E: 10/12/l'OW'	..
''	I «    '  / .'   ,, »   ,'','  :':".' ,,'':	'(!

'!	<

TO•	lt'ROM:
SAF/MRBR	s1:cru:'I'ARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FOR(.'E DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40	1535COMMANll UR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPll AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDRl!:WS   A.Jt"U,MD   10761-7001

A}'HQ l<'ORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00123	

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 scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, but failed to appear or notify the Board.

No exhibits were submitted on the applicant's behalf.

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: The applicant cited his eagerness to serve again, "especially in this time of recruitment crisis and [the] war overseas," in documenting his desire for an upgrade of discharge so that he may enlist in the United States Marine Corps. He otherwise did not submit any issues questioning the equity or propriety of the non-judicia l punishment actions he received or the resultant discharge action. Specifically, the applicant received two Article 15s during his term of enlistment, covering a period from on or about 9 July 1993 until his date of discharge on 20 May 1997. The first Article 15, issued on 29 April 1996, was for unlawfull y striking another Airman in the head with a bottle. For this offense the applicant received a suspended reduction in grade to Airman and 15 days extra duty. The second Article 15, issued on 28 March 1997, contained two specifications; one for wrongfully wearing, without authority, the rank of Senior Airman insignia over a several month period (from on or about 9 July 1996 to 4 February 1997) and his dishonorable failure to pay an indebtedness on his government travel card of the amount of $240.03. The applicant's record does not contain the notification memorandum from his commander, the review of legal sufficiency, nor his responses to either of the Article l 5s or the discharge action. The DRB recognized the fact that the applicant had served three years and 10 months, of a four-year term of enlistment before his discharge was  initiated and  that he had achieved three consecutive overall "4" enlisted performance reports. Additionall y, the Board acknowledged the likelihood that the applicant is making a significant contribution to the life and safety of his community, as an "LACO fire fighter." However, the Board was deprived of an opportunity to receive any objective evidence upon which to base an upgrade  of  the applicant's discharge, either through suppl emental written documentation, such as letters of recommendation or commendation, proof of his alleged "unblemished record" with his current  employer, or testimony that would otherwise overcome a presumption ofregularity in the processing of his discharge. The Board concluded that the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, that it 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