AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, I<'IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

-:-------------------------------- .:

	:··------------:

''	''

''	''

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

COUNSL
1- ......-....
YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

1------------ - - - - - - - - -----------------i------+-----+------+-------1	1

'''
,_':
'''
i-!'

'

''' '
....:
'

' '''
ISSUES

A92.01 A94.05 A92.05

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

x x x
x
x
; EXHIBITS SUBMITTE°iiOCO TtfE 10
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION   FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BR!Ef OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE l IE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

24 May 2007	

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 subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

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

'	'

,J            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'	'

----------1

'''
'''

''

'

'

sm1200

-	siME"Ni·-- -	-- "V)• ;---·-------- -------------- i:U.'t'lt':' '·---1 .--,	1

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

' ,>,

SECRETARY OF THI> AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE  DISCHAllGt: REVIEW  BOARD
15J5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
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-2007-00020	

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 . Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and three Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  The applicant received an Article 15 for unlawfully striking a child under the age of 16 on the leg and buttocks with a belt.  He was punished with a forfeiture of pay and 30 days of extra duty.  He had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for a civilian charge of violating a protective order, puncturing his wife's tires, disturbing the peace, domestic violence, and failure to pass his QC evaluation which resulted in him losing his Response Force Leader Certification.  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, letters of recommendation 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 substanti ve 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