AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD		
NAM E OF SERVICE M EMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AMN		
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW	
	ADDRESS ,\ND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL	

x

MEMBER SITTING

----------------------------------------

HON
x x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x
x x

ISSUES

A95.00

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

 	EXIIIBITS SlJBMITfED TO TffE' BQ,\.ltµ''     . 	

A67.10

A39.00

I	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 TIM E OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONA L APPEA RANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

21Apr  2004	FD-2003-00456

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video teleconferencing from Fort Gillem, GA. The board met in Washington, D.C.; the applicant and counsel were present in Fort Gillem, GA.

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,c'."!.<'.:}_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _	----- - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - --,:	1
...
·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO:	FROM:
SAF/M RBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 RA.NDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCH.-'1.RGE REVIE\V BOARD
1535 COJ\-li\lAND DR, EF. WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDRF.\VS AFR, !\ID 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition \Viii be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIKW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUM BER

FD-2003-00456	

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

The applicant personally appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB).

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  au inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The applicant stated that shortly before this incident another Security Forces ainnan at the same deployed duty station was caught using headphones while posted as a sentinel, and that this aim1an did not receive nonjudicial punishment for the offense.  The applicant did not remember the airman's.·name, nor did he know specific details about the situation or the airman.  In light of that case, the applicant argues that because he was not using the contraband material when he was caught he should not have received an Article 15.  (The materials were in the applicant's backpack, which was left partially open at his post.  He stated that he was not using the contraband at the time; rather, someone noticed them in his backpack.)  Due to the lack of specific information pertaining to the alleged previous incident, the DRB had no evidence upon which to base a finding of inequity.  The applicant was given ample opportunity to provide this information but stated he didn't know the airman's name, the airman's disciplinary record, or details of the case other than the airman was caught wearing earphones while posted on duty.

Issue 2.  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 Form 2366, on  September 8, 1994) 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.

Issne 3.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15 and one letter of reprimand for misconduct.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The DRB 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.

Issue 4.  While not raised in his application, the applicant noted that since separating from the Air Force, he has secured employment with the Transportation Security Administration and that he has achieved the position of lead screener.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.
The DRB concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 5.  While not raised in his application, the applicant noted that he would like to reenter the military but that his reenlistment code prevented him from doing so.  After a thorough review of the applicant's record and evidence presented at the hearing the DRB found no basis exists for changing the reenlistment code.	

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