AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAM E OF S;RVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITJAL)	GRAtn:

A MN
X	RECORD  REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

n:s	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Ot' COl!NS:I,

GEN

UOTHC	I	OTHER	DENY
x

----------+------+-----+-----r-----·--·- .......   .
x
----------!------- ---·-----1------+-----+----'
x
x
x

ISSlJES

A93.01 A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

!1- ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

---··----··-- ..... .. ,..  -

-+------------
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DfSCHARGE
l-+------------------------·--·---
3--11LE-T-T-ER or NOTlrlCATION------·---·---- - - ----
4  BRI EF OF PERSONN EL P!LE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXI l l R ITS SlJBMlTTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARING

HEARING  DATE

17 Dec 2009	FD-2008-00588
AePLICANT'_S IS$.\l'All!f.l,TI-Ul ll!)A!U),: :PBC!SlN .RA'f!ONALE A!q!,OCUSSllll o'flll!ATIACH!!D A.IR FORC.J)	ROI! J\EVIE\¥ llOA!ID DECISIONAi. RAnoNAl.E..
',	, ,   ' '.: ;' ·· :: ,;:··'.,' ,.', ·d,.;,(,':· ', • ,,; 1         - \.' '•,:H ,',	'··,.)	•	···1.          ·.•  ' '  ..)  ' ",;,,.','." ,        , :     ·,    ',.,..;·   . ·	-·:·'"·'·'·	-	,    '	,,
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/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
 TX 78150-4742

OF THE AIR  FOR('F. PERSONNEL  COUNCIL DISCHARGE  REVmW  BOARD
'-Vr'lMt•iw v..., EE WING, JR[) FLOOR

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NliMBER

FD-2008-00588	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Revi ew 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.

FINDINGS:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Although the applicant docs not specifically contend that his discharge was  inequitable,  he requested an upgrade based upon his contention that he joined the military before he was ready and made some bad decisions, hut he has since corrected his faults. The applicant docs not want the discharge characterization to negatively affect the rest of his life.

The record ind icated the applicant received the follo'V\-ing corrective action:
l .   28 Feb 07, Letter of Reprimand (LOR):  Failing to report to duty on time.
2.	5 Mar 07, LOR:  Failure to report to duty on time and with a proper uniform.
3.	19 Mar 07, LOR:  Reporti ng late for duty.
4.	25 Oct 07, LOR:  Unlawfully used salvia.
5.	30 Oct 07, Art 15: 4 specifications of Failure to go and dereliction of duty.

Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when younger, specifically because he joined the military before he was ready.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence that he did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was no different than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct, especial ly his unlawful use of salvia.

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 was provided full administrative due process.

ln 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