AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LASf , FIRST MIDDLE INlTIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORCANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x•+ x•+ x•+
x•+
x•+

ISSUES

A92 .0l

INDEX  NUMBER

A67.10

A94.05	1 ORDER APPOrNTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICAT ION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LEITER OF NOTlFICATION
4   BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TliE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HltARING DATE	CASE: NUMBER

10 Jan 2014	FD-20 13-00584

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.

*Narrative Reason and Authority
+RE Code

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 c STREET WEST, surrn40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PF.RSONNEi, COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISOlAAGE R£V1£W BOARD IS.JS COMMAND DR.EE WINO.JRD F\.OOR A1. 'JDR£WS AFB,MD 20762.7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00584	

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:	Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions and Vacation of the Suspension of Discharge

Applicant claims his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The record indicated the applicant received one Article 15, one Vacation, and four Letters of Reprimand.  His misconduct included failed to go to duty(2x), late for duty (2x), late for Article 15 response appointment, failed to maintain current vehicle insurance on POV, with intent to defraud wrote five checks to AAFES totaling $1260.00 while having insufficient funds in account, drove vehicle on installation when ordered not to by a Lt Col, failed to obey lawful order from SNCO, provided false statement to SNCO, failed to wear name tag on blue shirt, failed to follow a direct order, left CAC in computer card reader overnight, lied to SNCO, and failed to pay just debt.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was
appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for 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 signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on
16 December 2005) 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 Board noted that the applicant stated that at the time of discharge his commander and first sergeant assured him he would be eligible for his G.I. Bill benefits.  The DD Form 2366, mentioned above, and the Veterans Administration  are the only authority for receipt of G.I. Bill benefits.

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