AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FlRST MIDDl,E INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW

.DDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSl!:l,

-+------+------+------+-----·-·----
X+

AOI.00 A95.00

X+

!NllEX '<llMBEI\	A67.90

COUNSEL'S RELEASl:i TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL   APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

Case heard in Washington, D.C. via video tel econference with Randol ph A FB TX on August 1 I , 20 I 0. Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes wi ll be made avai lable to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.
+ - Narrative Reason

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE: PERSONNf:L COUNCIL

"'"""' "" REvrnw BOAIUJ
LU!l'IM/\fW DI\, EE WING, JR[) FLOOR
MD 20762-70iH

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, .IAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVI EW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASF'. NUMBF'.R

FD-2008-00455	

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for discharge.   The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and factors leading to the discharge.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with counsel from the Veterans Com mission- via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Randolph AFB Texas on 11 Aug 2010.

FINDING:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reason 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:

Applicant submitted no issues rega rdi ng the i nequity or impropriety of his discharge.  During the discharge process, the applicant was under the impression he could reenter the Air Force.   The applicant attempted to enlist in the Army, but was denied due to his General discharge.   The Board noted the issue was a common result of miscommunication at the time of the discharge.  The records indicated the applicant was punished under Artie.l e 15, UMCJ, by failing to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully processing sexually explicit material on a government computer system.  He recei ved two	of Reprimand (LOR).   The first LOR was for accessing different pornographic internet sites on two separate government computer terminals.  The second LOR was due to	released from Airman Leadership School (ALS) for disciplinary reasons.  The Discharge Review Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board found appl icant's contention to be without merit and concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the d ischarge received by the applicant found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substanti ve requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.