AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIOOU: I NITIAL)	CRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·.-------------------------·.

..----------------..

..	...

AlC

..	..

TYPE    GEN	x	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	I	RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl1.ATION OF COUNSEL
YES	I	Nu
I x

.

...

.

i-...:
i-...:

MEMBER SITTING

..

.

..

..

...
...

VOTE OF THE BOARD
- -· · '      ,-.,	 	
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X*+

X*+

.	..

X*+

..	...

.	..

X*+

.

.

i-...:

...
----------------------------------- ·

X*+

ISSUES	A95.00	INl>t:X NllMHt;>t	A67.10	EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED  TO THE  BOARD
A92.21	I	OR DER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD
AOl.00	2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVI EW OF UISCHAROE
3	LETTER or NOTI FICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl I E HOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TI ME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NllMBER

14 Jun 2007	FD-2006-00462
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSElJ ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAi. RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C. via video telecon ference with Andrews AFB Maryland and Robins AFB Georgia. Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  ·c:;r-	!:>

'''
''' ''

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 6/25/2007
TO:	FH.OM:
SAF/MRBR	SCKETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  fl:RSONNEL COtJNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  ROARll
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 311.D FLOOR
RAN DOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742	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-2006-00462	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on June 14, 2007.  The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf:	(wife).

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge, change ofreason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code arc 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 l .  The applicant submitted no issues of impropriety or inequity and realized his actions while in the military were unacceptable.  He admitted that he was young and immature.  He has expressed a desire for upgrade of his discharge to qualify for reenlistment into the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, eight Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment, six Records of Individual Counseling and three Memorandums for Record for misconduct.  He received an Article 15 for failure to shave and driving in excessive speeds.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman First Class, suspended forfeiture of pay for two months, and 30 days of extra duty.  The applicant had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for being late for work on repeated occasions, failure to shave, financial irresponsibility, numerous uniform discrepancies, poor personal hygiene, failed room inspections, missing a mandatory formation, failure to obey a lawful order, lack of motivation and CDC pretest failure, adultery and lying, and off-duty misconduct for having sexual intercourse with a minor.  The DRB opined that through these admin istrative 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.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  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 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