r----------------··--·--..··--------------------------------
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE l"llTIAL)

GRADE	AFS"l/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AB
x	RECORD REVIEW

:,,,11,1)1	: MME o·cot:NSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

'""'" ' .   .,   .....-·-- --!-------' - ------------·..-
APPRESS Arm OR ORGANIZATION OF COIJNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

-----·--- ---··-t---· ---r---  ---r-----t----+------:
x

	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
	2
3
4	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATIO-N···--· --------
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARA NCE
-------------1	

		

x

A93.01 A94.05

INDEX NOMllli:I!

A67.90

TAPE RECOR DING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

II EARING  llATE	CASE Nl!MBER

20 Aug 2009	FD-2008-00419

Case heard in Washi ngton, 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 A FBCMR.

Names  and votes wi l l be made avai lable to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

nt Code are denied

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR    'ORO:DISCHARGE  REvrnw  ROARD
1535 COMMA1'D DI!., EE WING, JRD Fl.OOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7001

AFHQ FOR;'VI 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

A I R  FORCE  DISCH ARGE  REV I EW  BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00419	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade  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 and requests t hat the review be completed based on the available service record. The attached brief contains avai l able perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge .

.FINDINGS: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code.

The Board  finds the applicant submitted no	contesting the equity or propriety  of the discharge, and alter a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.  The record indi cated the applicant received the following corrective action:
I .  Two (2) Article 15 for sleeping on post (Article 1 13, UCMJ)/false official statement (Article 107, UCMJ) and cruelty/maltreatment (two counts) (Article 93, UCMJ).
2.   One (1) Letter of Reprimand  for entering a Charleston AFB residence, pursuing an 18-year old dependent and committing adultery with her.

ISSUES:

lssue l . Applicant contends poor judgment was the cause of the discharge and the characterization should have been honorable. The Board concurs with the assessment of poor judgment but detem1incd the general discharge characterization was very appropriate. The Board considered the nature  and  severity  of  the miscond uct and opined that command acted in the best interest of the Air Force according to established policies, guidelines and expected behavior of all Airmen. The misconduct was  well  beyond  "poor judgment" . No inequity or impropriety could he found during a thoroug h  review  of the record.  The discharge was found to be appropriate.

issue 2. Appl icant contends no rehabilitation was offered after receiving corrective action. In this case, the rehabilitation came in the form of administrative actions with intent to allow the individual to correct the unacceptable behavior. The applicant didn't correct the behavior and was subsequently discharged for the offenses.  Frnihermorc, i n such cases, rehabilitation potential must be determined by the command and is not a guarantee. The Board found  the egregious nature  of the offenses and continued poor choices warranted discharge and a general characterization.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was with in the discretion  of the discharge authority and the applicant 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 and determines the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Exan1incr's Brief