GRADE

x

2

3

4

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSNISSAJ\'

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGAN!ZATIOI\	ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN!ZAT!ON OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

x x x

A95.00

ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LEITER  OF NOTIFICATION
BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARJNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

31 Jan 2014	FD-2012-00490

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 request.

TO:

FROM:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD Ill COMMAND DR, EE WING. JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AF110 MD 20762- 7001

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

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE      FD-2012-00490

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Warner Robins AFB Georgia on 31 January 2014.

The following additional exhibits were subm itted at the heari ng: Exhibit #6: Character Letter

The attached brief contai ns available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. After a review of the record, the Board voted to deny the relief of the req uested upgrade as discussed below.

FIN DING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.  Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:
Appl icant contends that his service characterization was inequitable because i t was unduly harsh. He believes he should have been provided with increased mentorship or at a m inimum offered Probation and Rehabilitation. The records indicated the applicant received two actions under Article 15, UCMJ, and multiple Letters of Reprimand and a Letter of Admonishment. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to understand what was expected of him and change his negative behavior. While the Board strongly considered whether the applicant had received sufficient support from his unit and the installation, ultimately they 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.

Applicant states that his service characterization did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The ORB took note of the applicant's duty performance as he relayed it in sworn testimony; however they found the misconduct (which was both frequent and repetitive) offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the service characterization was appropriate in this case.

The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he was made aware that he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

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