AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF S};RVIO; MEM BER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADie

AFSN/SSAN

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

AB	:.·----------------·:.
----------------- ·

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

;,	(l.90$ltL  })'??   NAME O>" COUNSH, AND OH ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

ADDRESS ANll OR ORGANl>':ATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

Lo

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

x x x
x

-IS-S-U-E-S-------------------------
A94.53

INPEX NUM8ER

A64.00

1	OR!JER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DTSCI IARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BR IE!' OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASf: TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I IE

llEARl/llG DA TE	CASE NUMBER

29 Jun 2007	FD-2007-00035

Case heard i n Washi ngton, D.C.

Ad vise 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 appl icant's request .

...-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	-
.....:	..
..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •.• - - - - - - ...rz ·- -· p·- - - - -:.... .... ... .  .- - - - - - - .,.- - - - - -· cz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - -:.. ,., - -
lNDORSE!VlENT	DJ\TE: 11JJi/Z007

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

SECRETARY OF TH!; AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIH FORCE DISCHARGE REVl>:W BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, J<;E WING, JRD l'"LOOR ANDREWS AFB, MP 207<,z.7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECI SIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2007-00035	

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 ri ght.

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received five Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand, four Records oflndividual Counseling, a Memorandum for Record, and four AF Form 341s for misconduct.  The first Article 15 was for selling a wristlet to another airman which was property of the United States.  He was punished with a forfeiture of pay for one month.  The second Article 15 was received while assigned as a trainee, he wrongfully entered a permanent party dormitory; was out of uniform while outside of his assigned dormitory room during Phase I; and for stealing clothing from the laundry  room.  He was punished with a forfeiture of pay for two months and 30 days of extra duty.  The third Article 15 was for failing to accomplish his extra-duty requirements.  As a result, he forfeited pay for two months
and performed 45 days of extra duty.  His fourth Article 15 was for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was punished with a restriction to Chanute AFB for 45 days and restricted from entering the premises of the Community College Center for 45 days.  The applicant had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for sleeping on duty, dereliction of duty, being outside without proper safety gear, being out of uniform and not marching in fi.)f mation, disrespect towards an NCO, delayed entry into Phase II of training, lack of military bearing, and insubordi nate conduct.  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 mil itary 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