_/	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD
NAM E OF SJ<:H.VICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GR.\DE	AFSN/SSAN
.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.'------------------------ .'

SRA

:..--------------------------------·

TYPE UOTH
1-YES ---No -

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME  OF COUNSEL AND Oil OllG. NIZA TION

AllllRESS ANll OR OllGANIZA TION OF COUNSEL

x
VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

HON

G EN	lJOTHC

x x x x

OTl l FR	DENY

ISSVf:S

A94.06

INDEX NIJMDER

A67.30

x
EXHlBl'J;'S SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE 130ARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTifICATION
f-----+--------------------	···
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL fILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE 130AR D ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUJ3MITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEA RANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASf: NllMRF:R

08 Mar 2007	FD-2006-00389
APPLICANT'S l$$UE ANO Tflll llOARJ?'S Ol!CISJONAL RA1'10NAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATIACHED AIR fORCE OlSCllAROE Rl:VlllW lloARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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 appl ication to the A FBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .,,_ - - --.-a.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...-----------
:
':	':
'·-- ----- -·- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- ----- -- -	MN- --- --- -,- ----- --- --- --- --- -- --- -·- --- --,--;--v,r1:' ; 31812007

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

I    FROM

I

SECRETARY  OF THF; All<  FORO: Pt;HSONNF;I. COUNCii.
.J R t'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND Oil, EE WING, JRO FLOOR ANIUu:ws AF!-1, MD :?076:?-7002

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00389	

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 perti nent data on the appl i cant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  The discharge is upgraded to general.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence  provided  by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization for discharge improper.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received a Civilian Conviction for arson.  After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by applicant and contained in the records, the Board concluded there was insufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge and that the appl icant's submitted issue was without  merit.  His discharge was proper for the reasons stated at the time.  However, the Board found the characterization was too harsh under the circumstances of the case.  The DRB opined that the misconduct of the applicant did not directly affect the performance of his military duties as stated in Air Force Instruction 36-3209, Separation and Retirement  Procedures for Air National Guard and Air f orce Reserve Members,
Attachment 2, paragraph A2.2.3.  The instruction states that "conduct in the civilian community of a member who is not on active duty or active duty training may be used to characterize service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions only if the conduct directl y affects the performance of military duties."  There was no evidence in the case file showing any impact upon the perfrHmance of his duties.  The DRB concluded that the separation authority's characterization  of the applicant's service, in this case, was improper.

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.

However,  in  view  of  the  foregoing  findings,  the  Board  further  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a General discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief