AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AIC	' 1 SI	1 111 •.

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

VOTE OF THE BOAR!>

GEN	!     UQTHC	.   OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.50	1	ORDER APPOINTING 'HIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
S AUG 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0226

3	LETTER OF NOTlf lCATION
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
. Al'.PLICANT''S ISSUE ANDTl:lli BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AAE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACflED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DilCISIONALRA'rIONALE.

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea ra nce with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MJBR
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	CASJl. NUMBER

FD03-0226	

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.	t
FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that nei,er evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.
I
ISSUES: Applicant contends that his discharge was too harsh because he thinks it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.   Specifically, he is not able to collect on his GI Bill in order to be able to attend college and establish a career. This issue is without merit. The applicant did not receive a ''bad discharge''. He received a General Discharge under Honorable conditions. The applicant cited his desire to receive the 0.1. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. 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 applicant then states that  his Article  15s indicate only isolated or minor offenses and that his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve. This issue is also without merit. The applicant received one Article 15 and it was for wrongfully having a loaded pistol and 31 rounds of ammunition in his dormitory room.  This is not a minor incident.   The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct. Finally, the applicant states that the use of alcohol and his psychiatric problems  further impaired his ability to serve. There is no mention in the record about a psychiatric problem.  The record does reveal that the member was treated for an alcohol problem. Also, in addition to the Article 15, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for lying to his supervisor and four Letters of Counseling for reporting to work unshaven, failure to go, failure to pass his dormitory room inspections and for being late for work numerous times. The applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty perfonnance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other information contained in the records. They found the seriousness  of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decisioj1 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.