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

_,_'' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _	''

'	'.

·'     -------------------------------·'	AM N

·'---------------'
'--------------- ·

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

''-'<''»
MEMBER  SITTING	-

VOT.E OFiliHE BO	..

!    ,',

1,,,

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTllER	DENY
'''	x
,..':

x

''' '

x

'

'

'

x

,-.:
' ''

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

'''	x
'
ISSUES	A92.0l	INDEX NIJMDER	A67.90	i ,.'.:flli 'fJ.Ts SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A92.03	1	ORDER APPOINTJNG THE BOARD 	
A94.05	2	APPLICATION  FOR REVlEW  OF  DISCHARGE
3	LETTER Of NOTIFICATION
4	13RlEF Of PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NIJMBER

10 May 2007	FD-2007-0002 7
·	APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND 1HE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON Tiii! A'rrAClil!D All\,l'ORCE DISCHARGE RllVTEW BOARD Dl!CISJONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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.

'.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	I
''	''
'	'

·	.

''	''
'••••••••••••••••m m m••m m•••••m••m m m•	···•1••·······	••	•	''
'	'
.\« ; ,, \ ·'

< 0  ' ' '  , '

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 5/15/2007

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi, COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARG : RF.VIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, F.E WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLP!l  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-2007-00027	

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.  He admits the nature of his problems were with alcohol.  He has since undergone and completed an alcohol rehabilitation program.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct. The applicant received an Article 15 for physically controlling a vehicle while drunk.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman, with reduction below Airman First Class suspended, a suspended forfeiture of pay, and 30 days of extra duty.  The Vacation action was for driving while drunk which resulted in a reduction in grade to Airman.  He was also administratively disciplined for a civilian conviction of driving while drunk.  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 ORB 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