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

-:------------------------ ·:
------------------------ ·

AB	'

------------------'·

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

1- co_u.,·.11:·:.11::.-.........j NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YJi:S	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
'-------------------------------------

HON	GEN

UOTl lC

OTHER

DENY

X*

---:
'
---:
'
---:
'

ISSUES

A92.35 A93.0l A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

X* X* X*
X*
ih ·;«	EX!JlBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BO.i\IJID' .·
1	ORDER APPOINTING Tl IE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISC! IARGE
3	LETTER Of NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF Of PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDJTIONAL  EXHTBTTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARA NCE IlE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Mar 2007	FD-2006-00255
Al'14p\NT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL MT!ONAL AIU! tllSCllSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL MTIONALll:

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

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 wi l l  be made available to the appl icant at the applicant's request.
* Reason and A uthority

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCii. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, Mii 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00255	

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

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 and change ofreason and authority for discharge 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.

ISSUE:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He admits that he was young and immature and states his discharge was due to minor infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, a Vacation, four Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and three Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  His first Article 15 was for dereliction of duty.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic (reduction below Airman was suspended), suspended forfeiture of pay, restriction to base for 45 days, and 45 days of extra duty.  He
received a Vacation for failure to go to his appointed place of duty in which he forfeited pay for two months. His second Article 15 was for having alcohol in his dormitory room and underage drinking.  He was  punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, forfeiture of pay, restriction to base for 30 days, and 30 days of extra duty.  He had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for failing dorm
room inspections, failure to report damage to a vehicle, being late for work, failure to communicate, and underage drinking.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took pl ace. 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 applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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