AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

•	NAME OF S•:RVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)

GRADE

Al C

RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

AIHIRl!:SS AND UR ORGANIZATION  OF CUIJNSEL

MF MRFR \;ITTI Nf;

DENY

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

lSSllfS	A.94.55	1NOEX Nl_!MHJ ;H

A67.IO

EXHmITSSJJB:S.IttTED'TO niE BOARD
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL PILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTl':D AT l'IME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I!EARING

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise 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 AFBCMR.

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the appl icant at the applicant's req uest.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenl istment Code

 	

OAIE:.· 12/2/2009.·

TO:

SAF/MRIJR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RA N DOLPH APB. TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF T!IE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE lllSCHARGF. REVll'W BOARD
1535 COMMA!'.ll HR, l!:I!: WING, 3Rll FLOOR Al\illRl!:WS Arn, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CAS; Nl 1'VIBER

FD-2008-00556	

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  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 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.

ISSUE:   From the DD Forni 293, the applicant contends discharge was inequitable because he was given inadequate time and consideration to correct his behavior.

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

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because his last nonjudicial punishment issued under Article 15, UCMJ, consisted of 6 months probation, but he was not allowed to serve those 6 months to prove himself.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 1Ss, three Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling for misconduct   His misconduct included assault, failure to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty (3x), leaving his appointed place of duty without authority (2x), smoking a cigarette while checking l.D. cards, expressing a complete disregard for policies and procedures in the performances of his Security Forces duties, and failure to be available to be reached in a timely manner during an exercise recall that he knew was going to take place.  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, the reason and authority for discharge, and the reenlistment code were all found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there	no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief