AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN
I
I

TYPE    GEN	x	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	I	RECORD REVIEW
: '.;:{   .COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL Ail<D OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TlON OF COUNSEL
YES	1'o
x
VQT)i;q	: ••. < ··•. r., .. c;<;; k:e: ::i
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x
x
-
x
-
x
ISSUES	A92.35	INDEX NUMBER	A62.00	EXHIBITS SUB	-0'.,'.tHE l,K)AR:IJ	. ;\
A94.05	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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

10 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00104

..	..

.APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONA4!JA    ;,;·A:'':;• . '::	. \	1 2 ;
c.

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

ENT	1'3  , .
--	·-
TO;	.........JO ••
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST.  SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 781 50-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00104	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 10 Oct 2013.

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 Fraudulent Entry

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant omitted or concealed matters, which he was asked questions about on his Air National Guard enlistment papers.  Specifically, he indicated on question 24b, Record of Military Processing, that he had not been denied reenlistment into any branch of the armed Forces of the United States.  However, the background check of his security clearance indicated he had been denied reenlistment into the Army.  Additionally, on questions I and 3, Statement for Reenlistment in the Air National Guard form, the applicant did not disclose that he was placed on probation due to criminal charges for disorderly conduct.  During the course of the hearing, the applicant stated that he did not purposely lie on his enlistment papers and he believed he was being honest at the time based on the phrasing of the questions.  However, he did testify that he was aware of an issue with his reenlistment code prior to joining the Air Force, but did not believe it was an issue he needed to disclose to the recruiter.  Additionally, he admitted that he should have provided more detail about the disorderly conduct incident, which led to his sentence of probation.  He stated he believed these incidents were minor and would have been waived prior to his enlistment had they been disclosed.  The applicant was notified on 9 April 2002 of his commander's recommendation to discharge his and his right to an administrative discharge board.  The applicant waived his right to have an administrative discharge board  hear his case.  After complete and thorough review of the records and the testimony provided by the applicant, the Board found the applicant's contentions to have no merit based on his awareness of the issue pertaining to the reenlistment code and admission he should have provided more detail in regards to his disorderly conduct charge and other civil proceedings.	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 doing well and has a good job.  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