AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
NAMI: OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl7.ATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

VOT&()F THE BOARD
MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

BEARING DATE
26 FEB 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0387

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 APPERANCE HEARING

>	'

'11\PPLlCANf'SISSUB AND THE BOARD'S DECIS10NALP.A110NAL ARE DlSCUSSBD ON TffEATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAJlGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE..:.:. .
·,.,,·:':··''(''v =:':"'.'.: '°'"'!::•,H,, •·::·:'. :·:.	·:·. ·::',:•',':\':' ":":'.%"<,, ;:!':::Wm. .x ,-,:.; ·	' ...     ·..:.':>:•;,)\·;.>:' .::,'/;·..!.·:·.      .	, '.. .·.·¥ . . ::···:	.      . . . ··.•
REMARKS
Case heard at 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.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0 2077, JAN 00	{EF Y2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0387	

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 to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

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

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest the discharge; he merely wants it upgraded in order to receive his G.I. Bill benefits. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15's for wrongfully receiving or concealing government tools, which he knew had been stolen, and, stealing motor oil, gasoline, a shovel and ice pick. The second Article 15 was for failure to go. In addition, he received seven Letters of Reprimand for failure to make satisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program (twice), damaged a government vehicle through negligence, civilian conviction for writing bad checks, dereliction of duty (twice), and failure to go. And, he received eight Records of Individual Counseling for reporting for mobility without proper equipment, acting in an unprofessional manner, negligent in the performance of duties, dereliction of duty (twice), late for work (three times), leaving a place of duty without authority, failure to complete assigned duties, and for receiving a traffic ticket. 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 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 that would warrant an upgrade. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 that 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief