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

:---------------------------------   ·'
'
'

AB	-' -------------'

TYPE  GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW
,       NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	AllORESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTllC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

1	ORDER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FI LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIB  ·1 S SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

Ht:AIUNG OATE

CASE NIJMDER

24 May 2007	FD-2007-00012

Case heard in Wash ington, 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 req uest.

'

----------------------------------   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
'
(
'

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150,4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE: REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS Arn, 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-2007-00012	

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:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s and a Vacation for misconduct.  The applicant received his first Article 15 for wrongfully using provoking words and gestures.  He was punished with a suspended reduction in grade to Airman, restriction to Ramstein AB for 30 days, 30 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  His second Article 15 and the Vacation action were for possession of alcohol while under the age of twenty-one and driving while drunk.  He was reduced in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to Charleston AFB for 30 days and 30 days of extra duty.  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 mi litary members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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