HON	GEN	UOTHC	OlHER	DENY	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE TNITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AIC
X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

	
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER
A67. 10	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXI HBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	

HEARING DATE

02 Mar 2010	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00598			

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.

' _ _ _ ._ - --. tt t..- ----..l- --.-:1-i.1- • •i.- n-.,Iicant at the applicant's request.	

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE l'ERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCllARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, Mil Zl)762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00598	

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 thc 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:

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  Insupport of his contention, the applicant noted that three of the incidents that were used as the basis for his discharge occurred in the same year and that he had been in the Air Force for three years before he got into trouble.  The applicant enlisted  on 23 March 2004.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 on 19 June 2007, a Vacation Action on 13 November 2007, a Letter of Reprimand on 5 February 2007, and a Record oflndividual Counseling on 20 December 2006.   His misconduct included using disrespectful language toward two different non-commissioned  officers; assaulting a senior airman by pushing him and disorderly conduct; urinating in public, failing to obey a lawful order, and disrespect and disregard for authority; and verbal and written harassment of a fellow airman.  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 Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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.

Inview 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