AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OJi' SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD  REVIEW

AJi'SN/SSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x x x
x

----· ··--·---+--------+------+---------+--------\
x

ISSUES

A92.35 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

1   ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

4

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
>---+-- ----------------·-	-
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

m;ARING DATE	CASE NUM81'R

27 May 2010	FD-2009-00189

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 AFBCM R.

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

 	

TO;

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

FROM;

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCH. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDRl\WS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-001 89	

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 applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and based on an isolated incident in 29 months of service and the charges were dropped.  The records indicated the applicant received a General discharge in accordance with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5.49a(3) for Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense; Sexual Perversion.  After a thorough review of the applicant's record, 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.

CONCLUSIONS:   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 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