AI R FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMB•:R (LAST, FI RST MIDDLE INITIAL)
r ·------------------------------------
------------------------------------ J

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN

.	.

.--------------.
"" -------------·

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

J--'-:£'i-!?'l,l.N...E...J:.;.;.',..;_....j NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

AUJlRESS AND OR ORGANIZAJ'ION OF COUNSEL

''iti  ''<:\)i=;,.:,:::J,.,·"+--'--""··  :: • lli]!ii". J:!'IE o'llliiu n	::::)< >	' <:i:>:f    ii

:-·--------------- ---- ---- ---- - -ER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

.

'...
..
r:.
,...:

-	--	+-	-+	-+--	-+--	--"	-I
x
+-	-+	-+--	--+-	--11--
x

x
x

ISSUES

A94.06 A92.0l

INDEX NLIMll:R

A67.10

EN,BI'fS  sul!;,i;;i;EDTQfBE	: ... JI:< <.
ORDER APPOI NTING THE HOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FI LE COUNSEl."'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT Tl ME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00249

A	.K1'VICW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	• •     << <

Case heard in Wash ington, D.C.

YIJII ········

;•;•••;   ········ ··	'·	; .,..,.,.,,

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 appl icant at the applicant's request.

---------	---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	. 	

TO:

SAF/MRR R
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RAN DOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PEJ<SONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE IHSCllARGE REVIEW BOAIW
J5J5 COMMANU  llR, EE WING, JRO FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00249	

GENERAL:  The applicant 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 that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that  provided  by  the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify  a change of discharge.

ISSU ES:
Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, one Letter of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct. The misconduct included insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned  officer, dereliction of duty, failure to go, unlawfully entering the dorm room of two female airmen, fleeing from armed forces policemen, failing to obey by wrongfully exiting an armed forces police vehicle, resisting apprehension by an armed forces pol iceman, making a false official statement and failing to install a forward track safety pin in preparing ammunition for removal. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the appl icant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant depart ure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant 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 accomplishments.  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