AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

...    •     '   • •	t	,,1 ,,1 : I	' ST, FIRST llDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OFCOUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA110N

x
ADDRESS A.'ID OR ORGANIZATION OFCOllNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSt1ES

A92.21 A93.0l

INDEX NUMllEll

A67.10

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 NUMB&R

19 Jul 2013	FD-2013-00221

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.

-i

-

. ..	.	,  '	-  -- - - ..	-	-   .	- .:, ·;
ntOM:

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF 1HEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNC L
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, Ml> 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00221	

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 that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify  a change of discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. Applicant contends since his discharge he has matured and is now seeking employment with his local Police Department; however without an upgrade to Honorable he will not be eligible for the position. The record indicates the applicant received two Article  l 5s, a Vacation action, and a Record oflndividual Counseling. His misconduct included drunk at Sheppard AFB, Texas, struck female airman with a liquor bottle and grabbed her by the throat and pushed her, drunk and disorderly, failure to go to duty on time, resisted apprehension, struck an airman with hand and head and another airman with hands, and threatened to kill and injure five Security Forces members. 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.

Although not specifically stated, applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when he was young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 24 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct

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 signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on May 5, 2001) that he understood 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.

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