AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF fOUNSk'.l.

VOTE OF THE .BOARD·

I	HON

GEN

-- UOTHC	I	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.0l

INDEX Nt.;MBER

I	x
A67.90

...

COUNSl':L'S REL!'.':ASE TO THE BOARD
!----------...  .....---------------!
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE llEAR INU
---·------------T--------------------r--+--------- _...,,...,,,,,	,
HEAIUNG DATE	CASE '.'HIMBER

13 Jan 2010	FD-2009-00002

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of lhe 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 will be made avai lable to the applicant at the applicant's request.

-..·--·---·----,........-.'>"",.·.,":>",f!:."!:!'l"'·"\"·:i''',.!'!'!''·:.·.";"·?."''':O'·:'."'..;".:i,'w,c;il"t";-.:',-....."·"-"'·---'."'f1l'il\'!lrTRQ''lDlDISl:l'l\ . n - l\T1.f.l. :"'•ll;;;•.:,,;:-,..,·."'i..,...,....'""TJ':"T:C:..".",J'J-:-	--.-.--...·-    ·".":'>".'"D"X""ll'El!,:....";"ii71ti5:.-/mlo"1'on.--.,...'"".T..,....,...-.,...--1

TO:

t	ET WEST, SUITE 40 _._.. ,_.._·········--·	.   .; ·-- ::.-: . : _.,	·1             FROM:
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARI' OF THE Am !'OR.Cf. PF:RSO:-<NEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW DOAR.D
l 535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, -'RO r'l.OOR ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762·70()1

--·---------------
AFHQ FORM 02077, JAN 00	(Ef -V2)

---······ ··  ·----------·-»••

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NllMBRR

FD-2009-00002	

GEN ERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered  a personal appearance before the Discharge  Review Board (ORB) but declined and req uests 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: The applicant stated that he took complete responsibility for his discharge, but would like to show that he is "not the same, immature, aimless individual that entered BMT almost 7 years ago."

The record indicated the applicant received the fol lowing corrective action:
l. 4 Feb 04: Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go.
14 May 04:  Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to go.
3.	14 Jun 04:  Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for failure to go.
4.	8 Jul 04: LOR for failure to go.
5.	19 Jul 04: LOR for failure to obey a lawful order.
6.	18 Aug 04:  LOR for driving while alcohol concentration was .046/failing field sobriety test.
7.	20 Sep 04: LOC for failure to go.
8.	5 Oct 04:  LOR for failure to go.
9.	29 Nov 04:  LOC for dereliction of duty.
10.	1l Feb 05:  LOR for dereliction of duty by misusing government travel card.

Although the applicant did not raise any issue of inequity or improptiety, he focused on the fact that he made numerous youthful mistakes and he is not the "same immature, aimless individual" when he entered Basic Military Training  (BMT).  The ORB recognized  the applicant  was  19 years  of  when  he entered the service and 21 years of age when the discharge took place. The record shows that the applicant's unit took numerous rehabilitative measures to correct the applicant's failure to adhere to standards-but the applicant failed to correct his behavior. The ORB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the repeated nature of his misconduct.

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.

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