AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE  GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

!-- --.;.-! NAME OF COUNSEL A Ml OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

Advise applicant of the 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 available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SA P/MR BR
ml C STRhE r WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE All! t'O!KE nRSONNt;c COliN('IL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND	EE	JRD  FLOOR ANDREWS AFB,

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBF.R

FD-2009-00029	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Di;:>.... wl i:;v Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the avai l able 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.

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 discharge.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends that his "discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 25 months  of  service."	The applicant  was discharged  IAW  A.Fl  36-3208, paragraph  5.52, commission  of" a offense.   Although the applicant did have one documented adverse action, nonjudicial punishment, it
was for several very  serious offenses, larceny, conspiracy to commit larceny and unlawful entry. Based upon  the  seriousness  of  the  applicant's  offenses,  the  Board  found  that  his  two  years  of	did not outweigh the offenses he committed. The DRB concluded that the characterization of  the  applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Hoard 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 ful l administrative due process.

In 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