AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB

RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

No
x	AMERICAN  LEGION

AUIJl!ESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

1608 K STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20006

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+

ISSUES

A93. 15 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90	: J[»l.VBffTl'ill:'lm"i w;
1 ORDER APPOfNT!NG THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LET IER OF NOTIFICATION
4  HRIFF Or PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
NA!. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF NAL APPEARANCE

X*+

RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARJNG

llEAl!ING DATE	CASE NUMBER

25 Feb 2010	FD-2008-00497

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Ad vise appl icant of the decision of the Board.and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's
*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment

TO:

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

FROMo

J;)A,TE:

SECRETARY Of THE AIR FOl!Ci> PERSONNEi. COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
IS35 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANllllt:ws At"H, M!l lil761-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00497	

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority and change the reenlistment code.  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 at Andrews AFB on 25 Feb 2010.  The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf:  Mrs.
-(Wife).
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 6:  American Legion Statement
Exhibit 7:  Status of Training (E-mail Traffic)

FINDINGS:   Upgrade of discharge, change ofreason and authority and change ofreenlistmcnt  code are denied.  The board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that woul d justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in light of raci al discrimination that he was subjected to by his co-workers that contributed to and extenuated his misconduct ofrecord.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, four Letters of Reprimand (LORs) and two Letters of Counseling (LOCs).  The first Article 15 was for failure to go to appointed place of duty and without authority left appointed place of duty.  The second Article 15 was for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer.   He was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions after serving 2 years and 10 months of his 4 year enlistment.  The Discharge Review Board opined that through these administrati ve actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to chm1ge his negative behavior.  The Board found applicant's issues to be without merit and concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicm1t found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substm1tive requirements of the discharge regulation m1d was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the appl icant was provided full administrative due process.