AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

	
DENY	
HON	GF.N	UOTHC	OTHER		
					X+*	
					X+*	
					
X+*	
					
X+*	
				X+*	

ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIH OF PERSONNEL flLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAi. Al'PEARANCI:':
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARAJ>.:CE HEARING

HEARJNG DATE

CASE NUMBER

18 May 2010	FD-2009-00186
l;Ci$1oN"AL l<ATIONALE Allll D1Slll:ll$1:0 ON 'nm A1'JACHED AIR fOG	\'!PW

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 subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

+ Narrative Reason
* RE Code

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150·4742

OF THE AIR t'ORt:E PERSONNEL COtlNt:IL
DISCllARGE REVIEW BOARD COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
MD 20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-001 86	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified befixe the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 18 May 2010. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: Ms. •applicant's mother.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit  5: Applicant's Contentions
Exhibit 6: American Legion Statement Exhibit 7: Character reference letters

The attached brief contains avail able pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, the change of reason  and  authority  for discharge, and change of reenlistment code.

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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in light of his performance over the years. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15 and three Letters of Counseling (LOC). The applicant did not provide responses to the first Article 1 5 and the three LOCs. His misconduct included purchasi ng alcohol for a minor (Article 92), falsely signing an official document (Article 107), failure to go, not prepared for training day, and speeding on a military  installation.  Both  Article  15s involved underage alcohol incidents. Applicant acknowledged his misconduct in response to the last Article 15, and acknowledged all of the misconduct in response to the discharge notification. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. 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