AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

---------------------------------------------- ''

---------------------------------------------- ·

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x
x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Apr 2004

FD-2003-00215

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

------------------------     ----------------------------------------------------------------------	·

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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

FD-2003-00215	

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

The applicant appeared with counsel,                  , of the Florida Department of Veteran's Affairs, and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Fort Gillem, GA, via video-teleconference with Andrews AFB, MD, on April 19, 2004.

The attached brief contains 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 that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant received a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct (conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline) and cited three issues:

Issue 1. The applicant felt that the discharge was inequitable because the reprimands he was given were excessive in that he became a target after a few LOCs (sic). The Board noted that the applicant received one Article 15, two LORs, and five RICs within a 13 month period between July 2001 and August 2002. After a thorough review and complete consideration of the information provided by the applicant and his counsel, along with the applicant's personal testimony, the Board concluded that the disciplinary infractions did establish a pattern of misconduct and were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members in that they included failure to follow a direct order, leaving the local area without informing his supervisor after previously being instructed to do so, reporting to work without shaving, failure to secure a tool box, failure to show for Physical Training, late for duty, and failure to go. The Board noted that although the infractions, in and of themselves, could be considered relatively insignificant, they were numerous, all well within the applicant's control, could have easily been avoided, and that the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior through these administrative actions.

Issue 2. The applicant also felt that he was discharged for failing his upgrade training test, even though he tried his best, and that he was discharged before he could convince his commander that he could pass his test. He testified that he felt that there was a direct correlation between his failing his upgrade training test and the excessive reprimands he was given. Testimony revealed that the applicant twice failed his End of Course CDCs sometime between May 2002 and August 2002, during which time he received his last LOR and the Article 15. Prior to this, he received one LOR and five RICs. The Board also noted that failure to progress in upgrade training was not used as a basis for the applicant's discharge; rather, he was discharged for a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Issue 3. The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as he is presently attending college full time. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits is having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade of applicant's 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.	

,

Inview 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