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

·'------------------------- ·'	AB

:--------------1

I

------------------------	--------------:

TYPE GEN
...... . .
"	
PERSON  AL   APPEARANCE	x	I

RECORD REVIEW

.. ..	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
n:s	No
x

AllDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Ot' COUNSEL

liiiili:ttJ>:

. ,.IiH

VO  ''!i:f THE'	-==:Jllli	············.···

MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	lJOTHC	OTHER	DENY
----------------------------------- ''	x
--	''

''

''	x
--,	'
''	x

'

-
....

'
'

'	x

'
'''
'''	x
-----------------------------------   '

ISSllf'.S	A94.05	I ND X NllMBF:R	A67.10	:xoH•'iitTs SUBM!J"l'ED l'o J;.YJ(BOARD i i .
A92.17	1	ORDER APPOINTING TllE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER or NOTf FICATION
4	BR IEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

--	-
HEARING DA TE	CASE NUMBER

08 Feb 2007	FD·2005-00368
I:Ii:::rn:::i::.:i" ,,,- '. .	v ANI>  '''"' ""'""· :	ARE DlI!•'""' :i'H•, A I I ACHED Alt<•••••IDKEr.	M: III?·

TAPE RECOR DING or PERSONAL APPEARANCE HF

M	::	.......	.·.

...t•''"''?    ''·······

)/' • <:\•<••	.,•      ....
Case heard in Washington, 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 applicant at the applicant's req uest.

•.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	.  	

c'.:
: , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. - .... ··············.·.·.···(··<· ?}?•'''• _')'\';;· ·· ...-.-

--

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

•	•.w.w.w.     YTl\l!)f\D

})//?'''	,,,, ,,,.,.....................

.............+..:; :....·.;.\,\•\' "'·.•:i .
_                         ..

'.

--

''

/

'•<-'-
_,.,,,,( ))))? ····-

TO:	FROM:

· · ···	.:::::::::::::::::::::;:::    ·

_-··-···· \

_....... Jliiilii'i'iii:::11:1·::::1::   ..	..

SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY  Ot" nm AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOAJ<ll
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMANP  DR, EE WING,JRD  rt.OUR
RAN DOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

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

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2005-00368

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. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's for misconduct.  Applicant received his first Article 15 for driving under the influence and failing to refrain from possessing alcohol while under the age of 21.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to base for 30 days, and a reprimand.  His second Article 15 was for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving in a reckless manner.  He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to base for 30 days, required to perform 30 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.
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.  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 ofrecommendation  and other accomplishments.   They found the seriousness of the wi llful 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