AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST l\flDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
All[JRlJ' >S AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

X*

X*

X*

ISSUES

A93.0l

X*

INDEX NUMllER	A67.90

2 APPLICA!10N FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL f!LF. COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUflMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING llATE

CASE NlJMllER

25 Mar 2010	FD-2009-00011

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.

*Reason and Authority

SAF/MRRR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COliNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARG1' Rf:VlEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, J<;f: WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFll, MD 20761-7001

Af<'llQ FORM 0-2077, ,JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00011	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

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 the discharge and change of reason and authority for 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 discha;ge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends his discharge characterization should be upgraded and his reason for discharge should be changed because he was immature at the time of his enlistment and made poor choices. He feels he has changed for the better since his discharge and his discharge characterization and reason have prevented him from advancing in life. The DRB felt that while the applicant may have been young (18) at the time of his enlistment, most other enlistees are of similar age and do not commit misconduct. During his short time in the Air Force, the applicant amassed one Article 15, four letters of reprimand, and one AETC Form 173 for misconduct. Notably, three of the actions involved the applicant sleeping on post or during duty hours. The DRB found the applicant's falling asleep while posted as a sentinel near Tallil AB, Iraq in December 2003 to be particularly egregious. The applicant demonstrated that he was unwilling to conform to Air Force standards and therefore, his discharge characterization and reason are appropriate.

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.

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