AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM It OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I NITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·:------------------------------- :
' ------------------------------ '·

AB	r,   ·--------------
--- ----- --- -- --J

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
,,,,,, ,,,	jll[ NAME  OF COUNSEL  AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

.

--!
'
'
'
'

'.

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

-·--""-"-
DENY

x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMREI<

A67. 10

EXHIIJl\t!SSUBMfITED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOrNT!NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETTER Of NOTIFICA T!ON
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  l'I M E OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE  R ECORDING  Of  PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HE

HEARING DATE	CASE N\JMDER

13 Mar 2007	FD-2006-00198
!"''''''''''''   //"/ '' '  o ">Ub AN!)	.,	ARE	,,,,,,
Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

11\JAK" DF.ClSIONAt RATIONALE

...	,   ,'

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCM R.

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

1

&-1£' ••. r J5'A !..i1';....-.;"(1.QQliiiil'il. • • • • • • •-•••• J.2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• J liiU".T.J\PJi'J;l.IWliil:lJj,,QQ.f'iii'"' l)ll'.d ...-·...................
'.
-- - ,:--111111111111:,,j,: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·:,:"":"":,:i. I;,,,,,,- •.- • ti i r::;,,(,::,:·- -,-- -:.::f7-:·-------------- ---, -----	- ;1	7

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORC£ DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD
ISJo COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFR, MD Zll76Z. 70oZ

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00198	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (OR B) but decl ined 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s, a Letter of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and a Letter of Admonishment for misconduct.  The applicant received his first Article 15 for wrongfully viewing and storing pornographic images via a government computer.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman First Class and 30 days of extra duty.  The second Article 15 was for stealing a DVD from another airman.  He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to base for 30 days and performed 7 days of extra duty.  He was administratively disciplined for violating an order by possessing a Gameboy and a magazine while on post, speeding, driving with an expired state registration and driver's license, and performing an unsafe and prohibited act by using firecrackers on post.  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.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.l. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, that he understood he must receive an Honorable 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 impropriety 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 applicant was provided foll administrative due process.

In view of the f9regoing 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