AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER !LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

X	RECORD  REVIEW
APDRESS ANll OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSEL

x

x
x x
x

ISSUES

A94. t t

INDEX NllMHER

A67.90

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXIIIH!TS SUBMITTED AT TIMF OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCl'
TAPE RECORDrNG OF PERSONAL A PPEARANCE HEARlNU

HEARING DATE

CASF: N!IMDER

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.

EST, SLJITF. 40

·\ ..INDORSEl:;NT

8/1012010

TO·

SKCRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi . COUNCIL
Am   VORCE   llISCHARm:REVIEW   BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, 1::•:WING, JR!l fl.OOR
ANDREWS A FD, MD 2076l·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00016	

GENERAL:  The appl icant 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.

After a review of the record, the Hoard unanimously  voted to grant the relief of the requested upgrade as discussed below.

:FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

The  Board  finds  that neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that woul d justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant infers his di <;:r-hf.I	was inequitable or improper because he "was treated unfairly during the weeks and months preceding (his) discharge".  Applicant failed to provide evidence to support his assertions and a thorough review of the records disclosed none.  The records indicated the applicant received three Article 15s, three Letters of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling.  Additionally, applicant failed to respond to any of these actions except the third Article 15; his appeal of that Article 15 was denied.
Finally, when recommended  for administrative discharge, applicant was entitled to an Administrative Discharge Board but unconditionall y waived his right to that board.  The ORB opined that through the various administrative actions noted, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his	behavior. The Board concl uded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air	career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was withi n the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

ln view of the foregoing findings, the Hoard further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for	
upgrade of discharge and determi nes the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief