AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
L APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

x

ISSUES

A94.00

!:>!DEX NUMBER

A67.90

1  ORDER APPOfNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETff:R OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE lIEARJNG

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

04 Aug 2010	FD-2009-00077

ss1mo	TlON

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.

·. :;.:.: '"''.'::. .	L/

TO:

SAf/MRBR
550 C STREET WE.  .	ITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL- RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00077	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. The applicant appeals for upgrade of his discharge in order to improve his chances of securing employment, or the type of employment he may be able to obtain. The Board appreciates the impact of applicant's discharge on his employment  prospects,  however  this  does  not	justification to the Board to upgrade the discharge. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct; conduct prejudicial to good order and discipl ine. Applicant had five Articles 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and two Memos for Record documenting his extensive misconduct. The board found there was sufficient evidence  to justify  the  characterization  of service which applicant received.

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