AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICIC M EM BER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

.

:·-------------------------
'
'	'

AB	'------------------.
' ---------------- '

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I

RECORD REVIEW

1- c_o.u.,N._sE_L---1 NAME OF C:OIJNSEt AND OR ORGANIZATION YICS	No
x

ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD
·································--- ---- -----

MEMBER  SITTING	HON
·---------------------------------- ·'
-:'
!'
----:'
l'
---:'
l
---':'

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+ X*+
X*+ X*+

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

X*+

ISSUES

A95.00 AOl.00

I NDF.X NllMIJF'.R

A67.IO

EXHlBlTS SUBMITTED TO THE .Boi\RJ)
I	ORDER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD
----------------

2	APPLICATION  roR RFVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTl rlCATION

-------1

C-----+----------- ·-----------
4	13 RI Er OF PERSON N l-:1. rl LE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE flOARD ADDITIONAL EXHll3ITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	C:ASE  NIJMIJER

20 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00322
Al'PLICA, l S ISSUE ANO 1IDI llOAIUl'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AU OUICllSSED ON 'lllll ATTACHlllJ AIR fORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE ·

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Ad vise 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 avai l able to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.
* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlisment Code

1

:>:.	-	-       INDOEMENT	- H	I <·

-	DATE: 2/2112007

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RAN DOLi'! I A H:!, TX 781 50-4742

FROM:

St;CRICTARY OF TIU: AIR FORC:E PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGIC RICVIEW HOARll
1535 COMMAND DR, EiC WING, Jl<ll H.OOR
ANDREWS Af'"B, MU 2D7f12-7(HJ2

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE  NUMBt<:R

FD-2006-00322	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	Upgrade   of  discharge,  change  of  reason  and  authority   for  discharge,   and  change  of reenlistment code 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:

Issue 1. The applicant submitted no issues and realized his actions while in the military were unacceptable and requested that the review be completed based on the avail able service record.  He was expressed a desire for upgrade of his discharge to allow for reenlistment into the armed forces.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and six Letters of Repri mand for misconduct.  He received an Article 15 for failing to remain in his dorm from 2100 to 0400 and for stealing six CD's from AAFES.  He was punished with a forfeiture of pay and 30 days correctional custody.
Applicant had additional misconduct in which he was administratively disciplined for leaving place of duty without approval, violation of curfew restrictions, underage drinking and violation of Phase 1. 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 applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  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 appropriately 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