AIR FORCE DISC H A RG E REVIEW  BOARD  H E A RING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLI<: INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSA N

.------------------------.
'	'
' ----------------------- '·

A I C

..------------·

'	'

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

TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	AllllRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  o ·COllNSEL
n:s	No
x

IL<•·••·•••· ·•·· ·····•.·..··· • .

(	'Url'lllL' rlL'TJU' RO A. RFI  ••·· ,y\.j).h •.

MEMBER SITTING

·--· - --
!ION	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DEN Y

'

---------------------------------- '	X+
'

..,

C-<

_,

' '' '

'	X+

'
''

'

''	X+
'	-
'

''	X+
'
'	-YO
''	X·f
'

... /?· .·

--------------------------------- '
ISSUES	A92.0 I	I NDEX NUMBER	A67.10	EX:ltlBITS SUBMITTEo. ;J:;i'.> 'tffE BOARD
A94.05	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	---
A92.05	2	APPLJCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4	BRJEf OF PERSONNEL FILE	-·-·
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONA L APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00240
i\iPl'.R!i!;,l\t:t:SJSSUE ANO T!JE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RA'rldl!li!l!ll!Mlll$i.l)ISCUSSED ON THE ATIAi:!l:l!ll!J'\111.• Clll:CE OTSCHAROE REVIEW'!ldA&tJ DECISIONAL RATION'A E  ....... ·...	.
...··.	...	······	.. <•·
Case heard in Wash i ngton, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel , and the ri ght to subm i t an application to the A FBCMR.

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the appl icant at the appl icant's request.

+ Reenlistment Code

..-. --- ------------------------------------------r :

'

'' '

'

'
'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -------------------------------------------	 	

'

'

'

'
'
'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	'
I'lill!IOBSEMENT	DATE:   2/221!67
TO:	FROM•

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY  m·THE AIR  FO[{CE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCllARC.E REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUJTE 40	15.15 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFH, TX 781 50-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-Y2)	Previous edition will be used

.·-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00240	

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

The appl icant 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 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.

ISSUES:
Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s, four Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct. The m isconduct included making a false official statement, failure to secure personal equipment, late for duty, dereliction of duty, failure to go, and making a false official statement. 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 appl icant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the records. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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