AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRAl>E	AFSN/SSAN

:.·-----------------------1.

I

------------------------- ·
TYPE  GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
I	NAMf: OF COUNSEL  AND OR ORGANIZATION
I

AlC	·..------------------- ·..
------------------- ·
x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

I x
....   V!lTE

MEMBER  STTTTNG
...-----------------------------------

.

---:
---...:
---.:
.
--:..
-----------------------------------

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.07
A93.ll A94.05

INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBIT	TQTHE ll; !,P	·.··
A67. 10
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE HOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIHITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Ma r 2007	FD-2006-00285

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

··-··· v..•-·'""" AIR _.,,,,..,,
....

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 A FBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

,.• - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ....,_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   --------\
:	.
:;·\:;::; ; ;.. .-.... ... ... ...·=··.:.:...:------- - .,---- - --- ---?"  .,.:... .,..-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - .... ... .,.. ... ,.,:,.,.:,.,:.,: ..- - r - - - - - - -- ·a- --- --- -:.--- --..-- --- ..-.,7...:;.,,;... :::::,.-. - -..-.- - -.. :···::·

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

SECRETARY  OF THt: AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR   ·ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW DOA RD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING,:lllO FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 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-2006-00285	

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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He states there were issues beyond his control and that he began to experience severe emotional and financial problems.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, four Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and seven Records of Individual Counseling for miscond uct.  The applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  He was punished with a suspended reduction in grade to Airman First Class, twenty days extra duty, and a reprimand.  His promotion was vacated for driving his car in a reckless manner at an extremely high rate of speed.  The applicant was administratively disciplined on numerous occasions for being late for work, disobeying a direct order, financial irresponsibility, drinking after the cutoff to report for duty in a sober state, failure to go, and continual tardiness to duty.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's 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.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant is doing well, has a good job and continuing his education.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriatel y characterized his term of service.

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