AIR FORCE DISCH ARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I NITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

-' ------------------------'	AB

-' ---------------'

'	'	'	'
'	· -- --- --- -- '	' -------------- '
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COl)NSEL
Yf:S	No

I

x

MEMBER    SITTING	----

........

VOTE bF THE )}OARD

,

,.....

......

r"

llON	GEN	UOTHC	OTI J ER	DENY
---------------------------------	x
x x x
x
---------------------------------

ISSUS	A93.23	INDEX NllMBER	A66.00	EXHIBITS SlfBMlT'f'ED TO THE BOARD
A92.21	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A94.05	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FJCATION
4	BRI EF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBI rs SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASJC NUMBER

25 Jan 2007	FD-2006-00223
AJ>PUCA!>IT/ !$SUE AND THE lloARO'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE OlSCUSSllO ON THE AT)'ACHED AIR FORCE DISCl:IAltGE RliVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAL!!	' "
>   ,'.,/','.,.

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 appl icant's request.

'

,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	---
'
''	'

'

''	'''

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 2/812007

'
---------------------------------------------------------------	--------, -----------------------------   ----'
TOo	FROMo

SAf/MRilR

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNf L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOI<
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00223	

GENERAL:  The appl icant 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:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was ineq uitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant had a Special Court Martial, received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and three Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  Applicant had a Special Court Martial for wrongful use of marijuana.  He was sentenced by a military judge and punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, 45 days confinement and forfeiture of pay for two months.  He had add itional misconduct and received an Article 15 for failure to go to appointed place of duty.  He was reduced in grade to Airman First Class.  His record also indicated he had been administratively disciplined for being late for work and financial irresponsibility.  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 memhers.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job as an electrician. 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.

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