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

_	,

''	''

'.	''

-'    -----------------------·'	AB	'--------------'

----------------------- ·

' -------------'

TYPE GEN

-----cot -=

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

• • •• ••••••-··     -N=

MEMBER SITTING

       	"      Mm"H""'""""

--'

--<

---.

--<

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

-----------------------------------	x

x x x
x

--IS-S!U.E-S-------------------------------IN--D-EX               NUMBER
A92.0I

A67. 10

:\o/;,,i EXHIBl'J:fl«VJ.\tf TTED TO THE BOARD

A92.03	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A94.05	2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIF!CA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I-IE

HEARING DA TE	CASE NUMBER

to May 2007	FD-2006-00448
Al'fUCANW!SISsOll AND THE BOARD'S flCISIONAL ll.At10NAUi	u1$CUS$1!D ON THll ATT,\'<fl\l,	ll,' ':)W l)l$CHARtll! Rl!VUIW SO·l;lSl(INAL RA'tlONALE

Case heard in Washington, 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 AFBCMR.

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

'

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1i	''
I'	''
'

.. "I" ''""' "'	".,

•''iNBBRSEMENT	•	I ,.,;:	'.	'

'	'

<<i'.<-

<<,<

DATE: 51,{2001

TO:	t'ROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCii.
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  Rl!VIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	15J5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JR[) FtOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 781 50-4742	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-2006-00448	

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.  He admits that he made a mistake and instead of dealing with his problems due to a divorce, he turned to alcohol.  The records indicated the applicant received three Article 15s for misconduct.  His first Article 15 was for driving while under the influence of alcohol.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Senior Airman, fourteen days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  His second Article 15 was for being drunk and disorderly.  For this misconduct, he was reduced in grade to Airman First Class.  His third and final Article 15 was for being drunk and disorderly.  He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic and restricted to base for 60 days.  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, awards 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