AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

1 NAME OJ<'SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADl:	Al<'SN/SSAN

AMN
X	RECORD  REVIEW
AllORf.SS AND OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSEL

x

ISSUES

A92.21 A92.0I

!!'<DEX NllMaER

x

1          1  ORDER APPOINTI NG THE BOARD

A94.05	. 2    APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DlSCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOT!I'ICA TION
4  AR!EF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL   APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASI". NUMBER

01 Jul 2010	FD-2009-00093

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Ad vise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the A FRCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:	1  •ROM:

SECRETARI' Of HIE AIR FORCE PERSONN>:i COLINCIL AIR •'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW liOAIUJ
ISJS COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3111) nooR AN01l£WS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NU'VIBER

l<'D-2009-00093	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeal s for upgrade of discharge to ho norable.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) bu t 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 l eading 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.

ISSUES:

Issue I.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 1 5, six Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and a vacation of suspended punishment.  The DRB opined that through	administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negati ve aspects of  the applicant's service outweighed the posit i ve contributions he made m his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.   Appl icant infers that his discharge did not take into account the	things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the appl icant's duty perfommnce as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accompl ishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful miscond uct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concl uded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no ineq uity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concl uded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concl udes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substanti ve requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided fuJl administrati ve 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 Brier