AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

·-    NAM_E OF SERVICE.MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
grj11 Tl	111 11 ,

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING
r'·-------------------------------------- .'

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x

': \	x
x
x x
--------------------------------------- '·

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

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

15 Apr 2004	FD-2003-00359

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

,-----------------	------- ----"'----- _<ii_ _ /.!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'
'	!	I
'
''
------------------------------------------------ '

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

SECRETARY OF mE 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

FD-2003-00359	

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

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Fort Gillem, Georgia, in April 2004, but failed to respond to formal notification of the hearing date and did not request a postponement.

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions and had received an Article 15, vacation of suspended punishment, four Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct. His infractions included repeated instances of failure to support his dependents, domestic disturbances, failure to go, dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders, failure to pay his creditors, and failure
to maintain his government quarters within standards.  Applicant contends he was the victim of spouse abuse perpetrated by his wife, which had an adverse impact on him and predicated his misconduct.   Applicant's medical records were not available to the board to review and there was no evidence in the available records that applicant sought assistance from available agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center, Life Skills Center, or chain of command.  Because applicant was unable to separate his personal problems from his duty performance, he became a disruptive burden on his unit.  The Board concludes there is insufficient evidence to substantiate applicant's mitigating factors, and that the discharge was procedurally proper and equitable.  The DRB opined that through the unit's numerous administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.   The characterization of applicant's discharge was appropriate due to his misconduct.

Issue 2. Applicant infers that he should not be penalized indefinitely for the mistakes he made in service. Applicant also 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 Form 2366, on March 10, 1997) 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 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 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