AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION or COUNSEi.

MEMBER SITIING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A67.10

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER 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 NVMBER

02 Aug 2013	FD-2013-00342

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:

-	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi. COUNOL

-	-	- - - ··----...... ---- --------- --

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

FROM:

AIR FORCE DISOIARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING.JRD Fl.OOR ANDREWS AFB,MD 207'2 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00342	

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 is requesting an upgrade in his discharge status for the sole reason of his family and pursuing his education to better serve his family. He also contends he was discharged due to administrative errors and infractions. The record indicates the applicant received two Article  15s, six Letters of Reprimand, six Letters of Counseling and a Record of Individual Counseling. His misconduct failure to turn in tool box at end of shift, failure to maintain dorm room in inspection order, failed BPO/PR inspection, disrespectful to Non-Commissioned  Officer, failed to maintain strict control of toolbox, disobeyed lawful order from Non-Commissioned  Officer, failure to use hands free device while operating motor vehicle, failure to use Technical Order to complete work, failed to complete a proper post flight inspection, with intent to deceive signed official AFTO form 781H with false information, failed to follow TAFBI-21-118 Para 3.1.2 and notify production superintendent or Expeditor of missing item, wore unserviceable coveralls during duty hours, signed off on form indicating FO check and vacuum of panel but did not complete the task, witnessed another individual commit a crime and then lied to Senior Non-Commissioned  Officer, and with intent to deceive signed false official statement. 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.

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 September 14, 2004) 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.

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