AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

.--------------------------------- ·.
--------------------------------:

AI C

·----- - - --- - - --.
-------------!

TYPE  GEN
1 ;;;::
YES	No
x

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND 01< ORGANIZATION	MllllH:ss AND OR ORGANIU1Tl<)N OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF TllE BOARD
MEMBER SITTING	•.. ·:·--·- ----··-···  .. ........  ··-- -···- ·'	....

'

..------------------------------- '

HON	(jEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X+*

r--'.!

'
r:------------------+-----r------1-------t-----r---    1

'

'	'	X+*

.

i-!'	''
'' '
'.

X+* X+*

'.
'.'

'----------------------+-------+-----+------+--  ----+-----·- -

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

A67.IO

"''-	HIBITS S0$Ml'.11l1> :<;! 1'ff

ISSUES

A93.0l

INDEX NllMRER

A94.05	\

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

--------··-

---+-------------
2	Al'PL!CA TION f'OR R EVIEW OF DISC! I ARCit::
------1
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
!--+--------------····-- ------
4	F!R IEF OF PERSONNEi    FILE ---- ------------
COU NSEL'S  RELEASE TO Tl IE BOARD
ADDITION/\C LXI !!BITS SlJBM IT'T"' FI )A- =1T-=r M Eo=r-- ···-­ PERSON/\L  APl'lc:ARANCE
TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONA L A PPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00238

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

ON r11

·.·····	/Iy,; ,JIIt• ·..···.

· ··.

Advise appl icant 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 available to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code
-:- - -	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,.,...;-,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .r' -	----
''

'

''

'...
PP

-	yo?:

TO,	FROM,
SAF/MRBR	v	PDE f NEL COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND  DR, £E WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH A FH, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS A-"· MD 20762-7002

'--------	---"---	--	-·-J	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition will be used	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NIJMBER

FD-2006-00238	

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  of  reason  and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of reenlistment code are 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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records i ndicated the applicant received five Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  The misconduct included failure to obey an order, dereliction of duty, lying, underage drinking and braking phase. 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. Applicant contends that he should not be penal ized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young. The DRB recognized the appl icant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the appl icant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements 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 l egal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief