AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	-X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

ADDRESS

AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

A67.50	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

BEARING DATE
IS Jul 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0081

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
ii	.iDlii<llSJQNJ\LllAnoNAtE.

RKS
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.

SAFIMIBR
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-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0081	

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 believes his discharge was a result of a false accusation from another airman. He also states that he thought his discharge would automatically be upgraded after six months and believes that he should get his G.I. Bill benefits. The record indicates the applicant received two Articles 15, the first for wrongfully using his government credit card and becoming delinquent on that account. The second one for wrongfully storing ammunition in his dormitory room. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for failure to go. Additionally, he received three Letters of Reprimand for being late for duty on three consecutive days, being apprehended for violation of a written order, financial irresponsibility, lying, and for making inferences of retaliatory actions against the Commander and the First Sergeant. The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB 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 applicant also stated that he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded in six months. The DRB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication. While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal. The issue concerning the false accusation is without merit. The record indicates there was plenty of evidence that existed for the Commander to believe that the applicant's words and actions, when considered together, constituted a threat against the Commander and the First Sergeant. 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