AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AB
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRl;ss A)li!J OR ORGANILHION OF COUNSRL

x

x x

ISS!:ES

A92.35

JNm:x NUMBt;R

x
x x
A67.90

'IIBITS SUBMHTED AT TIME OF NA!, APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

01Jul 2010

FD-2009-00145

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 available to the applicant at the applicant's '"""r111"<'f

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREH WFST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF TllE AIR FORCE PERSOSNf.I. COl!NCll. All! F0Rf £ IJJS('HARGE REVIEW BOARD
15JS COMMAM>  DR, EE WING, JRP FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00145	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for u pgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DR B) but decl ined 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.

ISSUE:   Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on one action in his 11 years of service "that was not work/military related that happened outside the military that didn't cause any direct adverse actions."  The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s, one Letter of Reprimand,
and one Record oflndividual Counsel ing for misconduct.  His misconduct included misuse of his government credit card over the course of several months, making a false official statement, dereliction of duty by sleeping on duty, failing to go to a training class, and committing adultery on divers occasions with the wife of an Ainnan who was both his friend and coworker.  The DRE opined that through these
administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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