AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

! NAME O.F SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

SRA
X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR OllGANIZA TION OF COUNSEL

x

x
x

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NllMBBR

A67.I O

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Of
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARJNG

HEARING  DATE

CASE NUMBER

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

TO:

SAF/M.R HR
550 C STREET WEST SUITE 40
RANDOL!'!I AFB, TX 781 50·4742

SECRETARY Of TIHO MR FORCE PEHSON r:L COUNCIL AIR FORCJ<: DISCl!ARGE IlEVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31Ul FLOOR
ANDREWS AfS, Ill 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASF. NUMBER

FD-2009-00019	

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.

FINDING:  Upgrade of the  is approved.

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor	provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization for discharge i nequitable.

ISSUE:    Although not explicitly stated, app l icant contends discharge was inequitable	it was too harsh. The record s indicated the applicant received an A rticl e 15 and  one  Letter  of Repri mand  for miscond uct. The DRB opined that although the two instances of m i scond uct were due to alcohol related incidents, the second instance of m iscond uct was over 14 months aHer the first incident. The first incident was for underage drinking with a	of .07 for which he recei ved an Article 15. The ORB opined that this level disciplinary action was too harsh.

CONCLUSION:   The	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 administ rative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findi ngs, the Board concludes that the overall qual ity of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, U SC 1553.

Attachment:
Brief