AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICF: MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AI<'SN/SSAN
;------ ----- ··:

·'' -------------------''	AI C

-------------·

TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE
NAMIC OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
ADDRESS ANll OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

I  x
MEMBER SITTING

HON

MOTE OFTJIJIJ>BOARD 1

1

uo:';:;	I	o:·;:lIER

>' ' ,·1.
DENY

GEN
x x x
x
.,
'	x
' ------------------------------- '

ISSUES

A92.21 A94.05

INllEX NIJMDER

A67.90

1	ORDER APPOI NTING THE I30AR D
2	Al'l'LICATION fOR REVIEW or DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTlflCA TION
4	AR IEF OF PERSONN EL FI LE
COU NSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl!E BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHll:lll'S SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECOR DING OF PERSONA L APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  llATF.

CASE NIJMBER

15 Ma r 2007	FD-2006-00437
' m,. iiliJ,{ (\(?i;'.11i1SsTIE, A,mN1i.i1"T1miii,iiBWOAA RD'Ss Dii'G. ,,,mm	ARE I H A'l J J\\,H"" AIR gmT::?lS· =l!UiVIEW BOARD Ollb1$1f) L RATIONALE	/>?   ,.,11·1',··11.·1
Case heard  in Wash i ngton, D.C.

Ad vise applicant 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 AFBCM R.

Names and votes wi l l  be made avail able to the applicant at the applicant's request.

-:'-·------------------------..,.   ---------------	·.r.. ........•
'

'	'

'

,:::f.,.. I"".· ·--· .·r ..···········.. ····.:.,.:.:.: . ·.... ,.. ... ... .. .. ·.· ..:.- ··········.. .····,,.,d,,,:,,,:,,,,:,.,.:.. ·.- ···----------- ---:::..-.-- --- ·r:;;:-, ··v ···.'.
TOo	I FROM:

SAF/MRJ3R
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RA NDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY  or THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COllNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REYIRW  BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, Et; WI NG, JR() FLOOR
ANDREWS Af'U, Mil 20762-7002

L	_______----1.	_	_ _ _ _ _ _ _

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00437	

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.

ISSU ES:

Issue 1.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s, three Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The misconduct included financial irresponsibility, failure to notify the Chain of Command of scheduled appointments, jumping the Chain of Command in order to be released from duty, civilian conviction for financial irresponsibility, using the American Express Government charge card for personal expenses, and using a government computer to contact a chat room on the Internet that was sexual in nature. 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 is still serving his country in a civilian capacity.  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 foll 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