AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
...----------------------------------- ·..	AB
----------------------------------	AFSN/SSAN
·..---------------..
--------------- ·		
TYPE   GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	

ISSUES

AOl.00

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

A95.00	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 EXHIBIT   SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DA TE	CASE NUMBER

14 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00143

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.

---•••• ••••m-••m-"m	- ---.1---m -----"'---m -m	1

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING. 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 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-2006-00143	

G ENERAL:  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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

The applicant submitted no issues to identify an inequity or impropriety in his discharge.  However, he cited his desire to apply for a job with the	and requested upgrade to increase his chances for acceptance by the police department.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article  l 5's, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Record oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.  He was administratively disciplined with a Letter of Reprimand and Record of Individual Counseling for missing four appointments at Life Skills and missing an appointment for a Wire Chaffing Class.  The applicant had further misconduct and received his first Article 15 for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  He was reduced in grade to Airman, required to perform 45 days of extra duty and received a reprimand.  His second Article 15 was for being absent from his place of duty, on divers occasions failed to go to appointed place of duty, impersonating an agent from the Office of Special Investigations, and for wrongful appropriation of a Security Forces badge.  For this misconduct, he was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to the limits of Nellis AFB for 45 days, and required to perform 45 days of extra duty.  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