AIR FORCE DISCHA RGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRSl' MIDDLE INITIAL)	GllADE	AFSN/SSAN

'	'	AMN	'	'

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

' vP"i"ciEN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T_ __

'
NAL APPEARANCE

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

PERS

'	'
x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

tOUNSil1w>   , NAME OF COUNSEL ANO OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING
-' ------------------------------------ '

VO'.fE OF THE BOARD
···'·'··-----	-- m   <     ··········-
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

''	''

X*+

'	''

'

'
-:'
''
'
''

''	X" l
'''
''	X*+
'''
''

'	''
'

'

'

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

X*+

X*+

ISSl)ES	A92.21	I NDEX NUMHER	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO'THE BOARD
A94.05	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCI!ARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXlIIBJTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

)-H;AH.I N(j l>ATE	('ASE  NlJMHl<:H.

29 Jun 2007	FD-2007-00034

TAPE RECORDING Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE
-

APPLICAl'<T'S ISSUE ANO THE llOARO'S OECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATIACHED AIR FORCE OISCHARGE RllVll!W l!OARD DllCISJONAJ. RATIONALE

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 appl ication to the A FBCMR.

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

* Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

!	'

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

'

'
'

DORSRMENT	DATE:  7/16/2007

-----------------------------------------	------------------ --------- -c------------------------------------------- ·
TO,	FROM,

SAf/MR13R

SECl<ETARY OF TllE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
,\IR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW HOARD
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RIJ t'LOOl<
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-2007-00034	

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 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, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand, and two Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant received an Article 15 for kicking and destroying the door to his residence and for driving under the influence of alcohol.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman and forfeiture of pay.  He had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for financial irresponsibility, being late for work, missing a mental health appointment, and  taking 30 Motrin with wine and drove a vehicle while impaired which caused an accident.  The DRB opined that through these admi nistrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negati ve behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge recei ved 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.

Issue 3.  The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded i n six months.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Revi ew 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 ful l admi nistrative 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 appl icant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief