AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

. NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AlC
X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDl!F.SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

X+ X+ X+
X+

ISSUES
A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

X+

A67.10

2  Al'PLICATlON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHTBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARlNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMJll':R

25 Feb 2010

FD-2008-00526

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, 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.

+Reenlistment Code

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,  SUITE 40 RANDOLi'! I  AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00526	

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 and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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 and change of reenlistment  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.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because his offenses were minor in nature.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and five Letters of Reprimand for misconduct during his seven months on active duty.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The DRB found that the instances of misconduct, when considered separately, were fairly minor.  However, the applicant continued to commit misconduct even
after being put on notice that his behavior was unacceptable.  The DRB felt that the number of instances of misconduct accrued by the applicant in his short period of service demonstrated that the applicant was unwilling to abide by Air Force rules.  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.

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.

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 remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief