AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MI OOLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AMN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEi,
YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

APDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSl!:L

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOTE OF THE BOARD

UOTIIC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMITTID TO THE BOARD .

A92.21

A67.90	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
16 JUL 03

CASE NUMBEll
FD2003-00118

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMff fED AT TIME Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
Al'PLICANT'S ISSUE ANIJ nmOOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAi, ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DF.CISIONAL RATIONAU;:
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, 3"'° 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

FD2003-00118	

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 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 the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issue 1 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DR B was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well with his college studies. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 4. 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 Fonn 2366) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future  educational  entitlements.  In addition, the applicant would have had to complete three continuous years of active duty service to take advantage of the G.I. Bill. 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.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge re,gulation 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, thus the appHcant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief