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

AMN	.	.

..----------------------- ..

-.----------------.

---------------------- ·	--------------- !
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW	 	
coyNSJIL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSRL
YES	No
x
VOTE QFTBE D"'AlU>

MEMBER SITTING

---"''''°""""      '·····'"-
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

:.

·..----------------------------------- ..	x
..	..
.	...	x

.

...

---...:
----..:

...	x

.

..

---

.
---...:

..	x
...	x

·---------------------------------- ·
ISSUES	A94.05	JNDt;x  NLIMllEll	A67.10	'   EtDrrs SUBMITTED TO THE BQAJW
A93.21	1	ORDER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD      	 	
2	APPLICATION !'OR REVll-'W OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	..
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL !'ILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl I F BOA RD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TI M F OF PERSONAL  APPEA RANCE

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONA L APPEARANCE  HE

HRARING DATE	CASE NLIMBEll

10 May 2007	FD-2006-00173
APPi.le ANT'S ISSUE AND THE llOAIU>'Sl!CISIONAL AATIO!il·   &[Qi\\QJ COSSEO ON THE ATI'l\CllllO Al)i( l'ORCE OISCHA)i(Gri MVIEW BOARD PECISIONAI. RATrONAUI:
.  ,,_N,      <      '' '"" '""" ""' """""'"	<,  ,,,,	.•      '•' : ·' ·'>1/	;"'· ,:::::n:>-:1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,',',',',',',',',',',',';   ,,,'.,',',_',',',',',',',',',',_   '''	'"	···::··::::::::::::::::::.
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 avai lable to the applicant at the applicant's request.

t.

  Ir;J'IN!JilF-.Qf_Ji CQ.Ji I!. - • ./.7. •••_.fl.._ .._ ....-_ .._ .._ .._ .._ .._ .._ .._ ..h 1r;.l'IN1Jf..O_F_l!.Q.1.l!.ll.rt !i!!lll Zt . _ ••_ f.1_ ••• _ .._ _ ••_ .';:-_ ••_ ••_ ••_ ••_

------    ------------------------------------IN--D-O--R-S-E-M--E-N--T-------	--------------	-----------------------D-A--T-E-f-;-,6-/-2-5-1-2-0-0-7-.------
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SF.CRHARY OF THF. AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
Aill FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING,JRD  t"LOOll
RANDOLPH AFB,  TX 781 50-4742	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-2006-00173	

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:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He contends his discharge was due to ineffective medicine prescribed to him for ADHD and the doctor's refusal to put him on more effective medicine.	The applicant felt that if his medications were changed, he would still be in the Air Force.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and three Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for being derelict in the performance of duties for failing to turn in his rags and a controlled tool at the end of his shift.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman and twenty days of extra duty.  The applicant had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for being late for duty, violating safety standards and lying to his supervisor, reporting to work in an extremely dirty uniform, poor personal hygiene, failure to go on two separate occasions, dereliction of duty by not using tech nical orders to perform duties, making a false official statement and disobeying a direct order.  The DRB opined that although the applicant was being treated for ADHD, it did not impair his ability to know right from wrong or ability to choose the right.  The DRB
further opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's 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