AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD
NAM E  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST l\UOOU:  IN ITIA L)	GRADE	A FSN/SSAN

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

·'--------------'

'	'	'	'

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

'	'	'

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNS&l-	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OK OKGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOT.E) OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

·"·· "'""' ' "'
llON	GEN	UOTHC	OTl lER	DENY
'	-----------	-
''	X+
'
''
''	X+
"--':
'
'''	X+
h

'

'

''	X+
-l
''	X+
''
ISSUES	A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A67. 10	EHlITS SUBM1n1mTO  TUE   BOARD
A94.05	1	OR DER APPOINTING Tl IE HOA RD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE DOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SU13M!TTED AT TIME OF
PERSONA L APPEARA NCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL A PPEA RANCE 111':

HEARING  flATE	CASE NllMHf;K

29 Jun 2007	FD-2007-00037
AP LICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE IJJSCUSSED ON THb ATfACHElJ AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Ad vise appl icant 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 AFBCMR.

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

+ Reenlistment Code

'

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

._

'

_'''	.,,.

:	{Eij5RSEMENT

,.,.

I:)

' ''
DATE:  '

12007

TO:	t"ROM:

7/16

SA F/MRBR	SF.CR>;TAR Y 0>' lilt: AIK >'OKCE Pt:KSONNi,;L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE  OISCllARGE REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND OR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH A FH. TX 781 50-4742	ANDKEWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REV IEW BOAR D DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2007-00037	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable 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 appl icant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence ofrccord nor that provided by the appl icant 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 two Article 15s for misconduct.  His first Article 15 was for fail ing to refrain from having an unauthorized minor in the dormitories and for underage drinking.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, 30 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  The  second Article 15 was for underage drinking and failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was
discipl ined with a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, restricted to Holloman AFB for 30 days, 30 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the appl icant had ample opportun ities to change his negative behavi or.  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.  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 appropriatel y characterized his term of service.

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 administrati ve 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