AIR FORCE DISCHAR GE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,RRST l\UDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION 01' COUl'ISEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUllS	INDEX NUMB&R
A92.21
A94.SS

A67.10

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISCHAR GE
3  LITTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL"S RELEASE TO nl E BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXlilBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARAN CE
TAPE RECORDING 01'PERSONAL APPEARANC E HEARING

lt &ARINC DAT!;;	CASE NUMBER

13 Mar 2014	FD-2013-00682
S ISSUEA!(I) TH6 l!OARD'S DtiClllK»IAl. M

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

UTIONAL£.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right 10 submit an applicat ion to the AFBCMR.

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

SAF/Jv' lRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFTllEAIR YOR Ct: f f.KSOJl/NEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE OISCHARCE R£VIEW HOARD
15l. SCOMMAND DR, CE WINC.JRO F\,OOR
ANDREWS AFB. MO 29"l-7otl

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00682	

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. FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.
ISSUE:   Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s. His misconduct included failed to go to duty on time (2x), failed to obey LAFB-I 32-6002, by cohabitating with female in dorm room, and wrongfully gave CAC to civilian female. Although the applicant accepted the Article 15, he stated that he was not cohabitating with a female in his dorm room nor did he give her his CAC.  After a complete and thorough review of the records and the evidence  provided by the applicant, the Board found the evidence of the record supported the reason for discharge.
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.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was involved in his community.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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