AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE

'AB
x

RECORD REVIEW

A.l<'SN/SSAN

AllllRf;SS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

x x x
x

ISSUES	A92.35	INOEX NUMBJ::R
A94.05

A67.l0

•	2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW or DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OP NOTJ FICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING OATF.	CASl': NllMBJ::R

07 Jan 2010	FD-2008-00533

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.

TO;
SAF/MRHR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFl:l, TX 781 50-4742

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD-DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00533	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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.

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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He further contends that his service was otherwise honorable with the exception of a fow minor infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s for misconduct.  His misconduct consisted of being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to remain in a position so as to keep accountability of all personnel for which he was responsible, failed to maintain positi ve control of his Land Mobile Radio and failure to go.  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.

The Board highly recommends that if the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issue(s), that he should consider exercising their right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifthe applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity/impropriety and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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