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

.-----------------------------------------
'
------------------------------------------ ·

AIC

---------'

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER  SITTING	HON
·' ---------------------------------- ' '
'

---------------------------------   ·	 	

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.05 A92.00

INDEX NUMBER

A61.00

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL Al'PEA RANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

25 Apr 2007	FD-2006-00326

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal  appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCM R.

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

_

..---- -·- -- ----------·	-----------------------------   -------------	---- ------ --	.,			,,.	,
'

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

SECRETARV  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING. JR!) FLOOR ANOREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NllMBEk

FD-2006-00326	

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 his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant's Article 15 was for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two separate occasions, and making two false official statements.  He was punished with a suspended reduction in grade to Airman and fifteen days of extra duty.  The applicant also received a Letter of Reprimand for a civilian conviction of theft.  He was sentenced to pay a Criminal Administration Fee, a Defense Facility Admin Fee, a Victim Witness Fee, a Indigent Defense Application Fee, a year in the Ward County Jail which was suspended, two years probation and 100 hours of Community Service.  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.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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