AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

'	'	SRA	'.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDU.: INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
;------------------------ .	---------------

x

------------------------:	'

I TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
I	I

RECORD  R EVIEW
I

I	IJ.ll\'5 . >    NAMt: OF COUNSEi. AND OR OKGANIZATION	ADDll:ss AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COllNSEL
VF.S	No
x	I

.::·:·.:,.·.	v:	''<>··	•,,:,

i!IIllilll''I:	··•> ;1:::·······    1:::1::•1:11:1:: · VOTk QF"'••mm"-\RO .   <	.Illl'lli •'····	···   ·!:l:1::i:1:
MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN
-·-
----------------------------------

'-'
x
µ	I
x

>--<

x	I
x
----------------------------------

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX Nl1M8ER

A66.00

··· ······	EXUI:Bl!ili1StsUBMITTEIIJ1l:J(.;).T}lE   BOARD       //   •   .
1	ORDER APPOINTING Tl IE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOT!FICA T!ON
4	I3RJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
I	ADDITIONAL FXI llBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE R ECORDING OF l'r:RSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASF. NUMBER

11 Jan 2007	FD-2006-00188
.'""' i\i -,

·-

Kl:V'.J::. <

. .J>i.·•••+ : .III\i.· •••	...... l:iiiiiiiiii' ...............:

".A"

.,..	"' ' no•	... A·I-D-

n'<

1••:••••:•••:::

•••••	...

··•·.·. ·· -iw:0,;.

I/III\/.	•.•..•.x:··················   ·····	'"?	· •.?If	·•··	III/I\•

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Ad vise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the A FBCMR

Names and votes will be made avai lable to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

_,---------------------------------..1. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
''	''
''	''
''	''
:'...:- - - .• - - - . .. .. ...  - - •.  .- - •.. ...  - - - - - -    -.,. l: ....,.:..• - - - - - - - - -.... ..- - - - - - - • 1•- - - - • ::i·c. •- - -... .  .- - - - - - - - - •. -- - - - - -- - - -. .-. .-'
.	V	INDORSflMENT	DATE: l/24tZl!Qt
TO:	Fl<OM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCF. PERSONNEL COllNCIC
AIR FOl<Ct; DISCHARGE R>;VIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND  OR, F,F,   WING. JRD  FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDRF.WS  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-2006-00188	

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 perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence ofrccord nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that wo uld justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and five Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct. The applicant was administratively disciplined for being late for duty and dereliction of duty.  He received m1Article  15
for wrongfully distributing hydrocodone (Vicodin).  He was punished with a suspended reduction in grade to Airman First Class, forfeiture of pay, and 14 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 miscond uct was a significant departure from cond uct expected of all mi litary mem bers.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  The DRB was pleased to sec that the applicant was doing well and continuing his education. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on  September 20, 1999) that he understood he must receive an lfonorable discharge to receive future  educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or i mpropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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 appl icant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no l egal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief