AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NA ME OF SERVICI<: MEMBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE INITIAL)

GRAm:

AMN
x	I

AFSN/SSAN
;-----------------
-----------------
RECORD REV IEW

Ii:,\ ,		; NAME OF COUNSEL  AN DOR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COIJNSEL

. ;..•...·..	·····   . :I:IiiI:!iii:iI:iii!:iii	yI"' Ul<O t.li:; Bt!ilRD .....· ..·...	• ••/::/:	-
IfON	Ci EN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY

.....

-------------------------------------   .	x
x x x
x

SSUES	A93.01	INDEX NLIM8F.R

A67. 10

i!i"ii•iiil .• .f XHJBJTS/ i l  il 'l:iifED	1•    ••···

A94.05	1
2

ORDER APl'OfNTfNG TI IE HOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	HRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COU NSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDJTIONAL EXH113JTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEA RANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPl·:ARANCE HE

HEARING UATF.	CASE NUMB>:ll

22 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00252
'    ;•••:••, :;		He,   U• . .••	·;.:,:'::[--, ,.     •·:·· ""'!" "'°}:..10:\::J;;""
Case heard i n Washington, D.C.

•	•• 11W AllUUKLt DlSCHAl\d!i ltl'!V!E\\lJ!j@. DE=ll()AL    i\il::ALF
....................................   ........ ·.	··· ······   ··············

..
. ·· ...............·.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/wi thout 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.

:- -- -..	-- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -,.., ··:_ - -_ ,·:-- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -·.
v

'.._ _ _ _
),"•",;

-·-rr····································································=,-r•'

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH A FH, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE PF.RSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHAllGF. REVIEW BOARU
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING. JRD FLOOll
ANURF.WS AFB, MD 2076:?-'1Ho2

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASF: Nl!MBER

FD-2006-00252	

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 contai ns 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.

ISSUES:
Issue l . Applicant contends discharge was inequitabl e because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s and two Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  The misconduct included failure to go, making verbal threats to another airman, conspiracy to commit an assault and battery, and unlawfully striking another airman. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the miscond uct 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 penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The ORB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the appl icant's discharge was appropriate d ue to the misconduct.

Issue 3. The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded in six months. The ORB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

CONCLUSIONS: The Di scharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requi rements 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