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

AMN

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

TYPE  GEN	x	I

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

I	RECORD    REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
,_Y_E_S	l     _N_o	.
I x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

'

-----------------------------------

'

'
,...:
''
''
c...:
''
''
'
c...:
''
''

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x x
X+

X+

x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10 A49.00

EXHIBITS SUBMITJED TO THE BQ,,4Jm
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Nov 2006	FD-2005-00324
APPLICANT'S ISSUE ANDTHE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARO DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video-teleconference  with Travis AFB, California.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

.

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY  TO ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION
"';' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ./.- - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i,-	--
'	''
''	''
''	''
L••••••••••,•  ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I
INDORSEMENT	DATE: 11/1412006
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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-2005-00324	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Andrews AFB via video­ teleconference with Travis AFB, California, without counsel, on 13 November 2006. Mr. r.·.·_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_1 also testified on the applicant's behalf.

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

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

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that other members committed more significant misconduct but were retained by the Air Force.  The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct as well as 5 AETC Forms 173 for his academic problems.  He also received additional study opportunities.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and improve his academic performance.  The Board concluded his cumulative misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  The DRB was sympathetic to his perception that others had engaged in more significant misconduct but were allowed to remain in the Air Force, but could not grant an upgrade to the respondent's discharge.  Each case must be considered on its own merits and the facts of the other individuals' cases were not before the Council.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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