AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FlRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Paralyzed Veterans of America

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

1201 Broad Rock Blvd Richmond VA 23249

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

A67.90

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL' SRELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

H£AIUNG  DATE	CASE NUMBER

19  Jul2013	FD-2013-00217

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:

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

SECRETARY Of THE AIR fOllCE PEltSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISC11ARGE REVIEW BOARD
(5)5 COMMAND DR,EE WING,JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00217	

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.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant received a UOTHC for a Pattern of Misconduct:  Misconduct: Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, a Vacation action, and a Special Court Martial. His misconduct included wrongful use of government travel card on multiple occasions, with intent to deceive made false official statement to a Non-Commissioned  Officer, wrongful use of marijuana on multiple occasions, with intent to defraud wrote bad checks in the amount of $2,500.00, and failure to pay  just debt. The applicant did consult with the Area Defense Counsel and did not submit any statements concerning his discharge. He also waived his right to present his case before an administrative discharge board and signed an unconditional wavier with the understanding that the separation authority will determine the type of discharge that will be issued to him. He further stated that he understood that he may be deprived of veteran's benefits and was aware of the adverse nature of such a discharge and the possible consequences thereof.  The applicant has repeatedly engaged in acts of misconduct that exemplify a blatant disregard for standards of acceptable conduct. The applicant's failure to conform to established behavioral expectations and Air Force standards clearly demonstrates his lack of integrity and his inability to adhere to Air Force standards. The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of  impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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