AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAM E OF SERVICE MEl\IBER (LAST, FIRST Ml OOLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN
X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MT<MRF.R  SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITfED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARJNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Jan 2010	FD-2009-00006

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 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY 01' TllE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
15l-S COMMAND DR, EE WING. JRI> FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00006	

GENERAL: 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 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: Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. The record indicates that in nine months of service, the applicant received one Letter of Reprimand for wearing civilian clothes outside the dormitory (while at tech training), one Letter of Reprimand for failure to complete a homework assignment, and an Article 15 for failure to go (x2). The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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 exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief