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

-..----------------- ·..
----------------- ·

AlC

:·- - - - - - - - - - - - -:
-------------!

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

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

21 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00136

·..  / .	..
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 application to the AFBCMR

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

..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...-----------
..	.
..: : ,:-- ,, :,,·- - - - - - - - --.--.---- - -,:_,.-:,_.:,,, :\(,: : 0/0 - - - - - - - -_- x'·:..':,.,.:;,,.:;u'J5':N:_-=l:::l::l:,!:'-J--R--S-EM'-, --E-N-::T::·:.::..::.:.._:·':::,-,.,:.:-:_; • .•.-·-····-··· .·.:.._..:..:..-•-..:.:.·.,0,· 1···:·,\:,•,•,•;•_,-----.--.- ·7· -::::--- •- • •- -. ,,.;,,,,:,.·:··,·,··.-..- - - -_D-. -A-T- -E-: - -.-212006

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00136	

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:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article  15's, a Vacation, five Letters of Reprimand, and three Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant received five Letters of Reprimand for being late for work, dereliction of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, threatening bodily harm against another airman and
indecent language.  He was further disciplined with Records of Individual Counseling for dereliction of duty, being late for work and failure to obey an order.  He received an Article 15 for failure to go to appointed  place of duty.  He was disciplined with a suspended reduction in grade to Airman, forfeiture of pay, 14 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  The Vacation action was for failure to go to appointed place of duty.  This resulted in a reduction in grade to Airman.  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.

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