AIR FORCE DISCH ARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

GRADE

X	RECOR D  REVIEW
ADDJliiSS AN!l OR ORGANIZATION  Of COUNSEL

x

ISSURS

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.IO

1 ORDER APPOINTING Tl IE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF
: COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUHMITTED AT TJ ME OF PERSONAL   APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEAR I NG

24 J un 2010	FD-2009-00184

Case heard i n 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 appl icant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742

FROMo

SECRETARY OF THE All! rn1<CE PERSONNEL COUNCIL All< ·or<c£ DISCHARGE REVIEW llOARD 153H'OMMAN!l DR, EE WIN<;, JRll •LOOR
A. DREWS AFR, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIKW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMRF.R

FU-2009-00184	

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.

FINDINGS:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the appl i cant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that woul d justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES:

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He contends he was not discharged for any wrong doing but only for failure of bis CDC.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and two Letters of Repri mand for misconduct.  His misconduct included underage drinking and driving, falling asleep at post, and disobeying a lawful order.  The ORB 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 i n his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant provided full administrative due process.

Tn view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and dctem1incs the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Exan1iner1s Brief