AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REV IEW BOARD ll EARINC R ECORD
NA \ IE OF SERVICE :\H.:\lllt:lt (l.AT. l'll -1 'llODLt:I N ITIAL)	(;R1\0t;	A FS/SS,\
{b){6)	(b)(6)
TYPE GE:-.!	I	PERSONAL APPEARA 'CE	x	I	RECORD REV I EW	 	
(Ol.).St:L	'\\ Ir Or< Ol   >rl \\ll OR ORG \\11.\TIO'	lllllRl \S \\l)OR OMC\\ 11\110'Qt C Ol  '>£1
H..S	'•
x
\'OTE OF 111£ BOARD
'IE\ IRER SITTI NG	llON	(JI '<	l,;0111('	OTHER	DLNY
{b)(6)	x
x

x
x x
ISSI ES	A94.53	"'"\ 'li\lllt'M	A67.10	t.Xllllll I	li1H11'1 l't;IJ TO Tii t: KO.<\R O
I ORDl ·R Al'l'OIN I ING I I ll·BOARD
2  ,\PPI K'A I ION I OR RI·\ II \\' 01 DISCllARGF
3  I I·I 11 R OF 1'0111 I (,\ llOt\	 	
.t  BRll-I 01 Pl RSONNI I  1 11 I·
COUl\Sl-1 'S R I I l·\SI· 10 Tl II·BO \RD
ADDll ION/\ 1 I Xl llUI I S SL B\111 I FD \ I  llMF OF
Pl RSON \I   \l'l'I  \It\'< I
I \Pl RI CORDl\<I 01 Pl RO' \I \l'PI .\RA'./CF HF,\RING

llf' 4.R"'- O \Tf	( \\I 'l\181 R

07 Apr 20J S	··0-2014-00754
APPLICAl-T\ IS<.l rr'0 rm flOARO''01(ISIO\Al R,\TIO'ALE ARE DISCllSSID °"TUCATIAC'll OAIR ltJtKE [)IS( llA(i£ RI VI·\\ 00,\PO 0£(15>'A.. RATIO' AlE

Case  heard  i n  Washington.   D.C.

Advi:.e appl icant of 1hc dcci:.ion or the Board , the right to a persona l a ppearance with1wi thout counsel, and the right to submit an appl icat ion to the J\FBCM R.

(b)(6)

.-
lDORSE   IET	DAl E: .t/15/20 15

TO;	fRO\I·
St\I \1RBR	.,.(Rt f \R\ Ot  ttlt  \Ut roR< t  rCR.."tU''l L ( Ol    ,IL

55(> C S I RI I  I \\  SI. SI I l l 40

\llHORC F Ol\('lt \MC:l Rl \ll\\ 80\Rll
J !OH( U\1\I \ IJOK. tt \\ l V••H<U ti OUK
RANDOi Pl I Al B  I X  :;1 50-174	\\OMI\\\   \f  l,\10 lt76?-7001

AFllQ FO R!\I 0-2077, .JAi'I 00	(EF-Y2)	Pre' ious

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJ EW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUi\ IBER

FD-2014-00754	

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

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 lead ing to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant recei ved a General discharge for Misconduct

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts responsi bility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterizat ion of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewi ng discharges, the Board presumes regulari ty in the conduct of governmenta l affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service includ ed one Article 15. His misconduct included wrongfu lly stealing someone's Government Travel Card (GTC) and making unauthorized purchases; writi ng down and memorizi ng another person's GTC number; soliciting someone to steal Bank of America property by giving said person another individua ls GTC number for purchases; and making official statements with intent to deceive.

The appl icant cited his desire to recei ve the G.L Bi ll benefits as justification for upgrade.  The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366 , on July 6, l 999) that he understood he must recei ve an Honorable discharge to recei ve future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact from the loss of these benefi ts to the applicant; however, this is not a matter of ineq ui ty or impropriety which would waii-ant an upgrade.

A discharge is upgraded only i f the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequi ty or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board found no evidence to justify an upgrade of the discharge characteri zation.

CONCLUS ION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the procedural and substantive requi rements of the discharge regulation, was  wi thin  the  discretion  of  the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided  ful l 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 rema in unchanged.

Attachment:
Exam iner's Brief