""'!""	----- -----	----

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

v     NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
AB	
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

DAV

MEMBER SITTING

-- --- --- --- ------ --- ---- --- --- -_......_	_

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES	. A93.23
A93.0I A93.09

INDEX NUMBER	A67.90

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 TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

07 May 2004	FD-2003-00549

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE lllSCHARGE 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-2003-00549

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 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 infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and did not take into consideration the negative impact several adverse personal situations had on him which caused him to "Act out."  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, a vacation action, six Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, four records of Individual Counseling and one Memorandum for Record for misconduct.  He also had an Unfavorable Information File, was placed on the Control Roster, and had an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "2." His infractions included failure to go, financial irresponsibility, vehicle registration lapses, disobeying lawful orders, fraudulent receipt of housing allowances, making a false official statement, and driving while intoxicated.  While it is understandable that
a member experiencing personal problems has additional stress, there is no evidence that member sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain, Mental Health Clinic, Family Support Center, or chain of command.  Because he was unable to separate his problems from his duties, he became an administrative burden on his unit and a disruptive influence on morale and discipline.  The DRB opined that through the unit's extensive administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

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
August 16, 1996) 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.

Issue 3.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. 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 as old as 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.

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