AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBJ:R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

AFSNISSAN

AllDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEt

X*+

X*+

ISSU!::S

A.94. 11 A92.2l A93.01

INDEX NllMIU::R

A67.10

  2  i APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 	
3 ILETTER OF NOTIFICATION 	
 4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 	
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
·	-1
ADDITIONAL EX! IIHITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
·PERSONA! .APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARINCi

HEARING  llATE	CASE NUMIJllR

JO Aug 2010	FD-2008-00330

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C via video-teleconference from Randol ph AFB, Texas.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Roard 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.
*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

 	

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 10 RANDOLPH Al'l:l, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF Tl!E AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIF.W BOAR!J
ISJ'i COMMAND IJlt EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANllRe:ws AF!!, MD Z0762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EFV2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00330	

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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews Af B Maryland and Randolph AFB Texas on 1 0 Aug 2010. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf:	(brother).

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:   The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenl istment code.

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 there was an impropriety in his discharge. He contends he was enlisted under the Delayed Entry Program and wanted to be in Aircrew Life Support. He had requested several times to be reclassified which were denied by the Air Force.       further contends there was a personality conflict with his supervisor. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and six Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct. His misconduct included failure to go (Sx), failure to polish boots as directed, failure to meet shaving standards, and stealing two vacuum blood specimen containers. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of  the applicant's service outweighed  the positive contributions he made in his Air Force  career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  The DRB was pleased to sec 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.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young and immature.  He also expressed a desire to have his discharge upgraded so that he may be eligible to enlist in the Air National Guard.   The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of	when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air     Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization  of the appl icant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

CONCLUSION:	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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.	

Jn view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief