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

r.----------------------- .

AMN	..--------------- ·.

-----------------------J	-------------- !
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
:f,PJJNSEL

YES	No
x

··.•···.··   NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

.···· .··.··•·	\U\TJ    n"'THE -·
','	.• ··••• •:IIII
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

----------------------------------	X*+

r_

r-

c,

r-.

----------------------------------

... ·

X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

I'·,'•I	EXHIBITS SUBMIT'l!ll:•:IC) TIDl JJOA.RD

A93.21	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 EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DA TE	CASE NUMBER

20 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00232
APPLICANT'SJssui;:.AN!l  THE BOARD'S DECISIOJfALltATIONAL AREDISCUSSED  ON TH	ft>
---    ;   _:	· ..	I	,...... ..•)?•····················   ,'•,•'•'
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

'' n ';/''.'.'.''' .··...•·

·.·.

',,'

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 AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

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

'

'' '
'
 	' 	
'

9ND(i)RSEMENT
TO:	1     FROM:

DATE:  212212007

SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB,  TX  78I50-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00232	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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, change ofreason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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 too harsh.  He contends his disciplinary actions were as a result of his medical condition.  He has expressed a desire for upgrade of his discharge to allow for reenlistment into the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, a Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand, and two Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct. He received an Article 15 for failure to go to appointed place of duty, driving under the influence of alcohol, and as a result of his overindulgence of alcohol, he was incapacitated for the performance of duties.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic with reduction below Airman suspended and forfeiture  of pay.  He received a Vacation action for failure to go to appointed place of duty and for previous overindulgence of alcohol resulting in failure to perform duties.  He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic. He had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for failure to go and dereliction of duty. The DRB opined that although the applicant was being treated for hyperthyroidism, it did not impair his ability to know right from wrong or ability to choose the right.  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