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

ISSUES

A93.01

INDEX NUMBER
A67.00

flEARl!'IG  IJAlE	CASE NUMDF.R

17 Jun 2010	FD-2009-00055

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 avai lable to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
 AFB, TX 78150·4742

s:c1mTARY OF THE AIR FORCE   PERSONN:L COl'NCIL AIR FORCF. O!SCHARGE REVIF:W BOARD
!535 COMMAN!> DR, EE WING, JIHl fLOOR ANtlR•ows AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARff DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00055	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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.

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 submitted no issues regardi ng lhe inequity or impropriety of his discharge.  He admits that he was young and immature.  The records indicate the appl icant received an Article 1	a Vacation and a Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct consisted of being drunk and disorderl y (2x) and was charged by civilian authorities for driving under the influence of alcohol.  The DRD recognized the applicant was 22 years of  age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was old er than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concl.udes 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 remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief