AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

ISSUES

AOI. 13

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

A93.19 A93.0I

A67.10

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 SUBMIT1ED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HF.ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Mar 2004	FD-2003-00564

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 RANDOLPH A

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20702-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE !\'UMBER

FD-2003-00564	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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,   change  of  reason  and  authority   for  discharge,   and  change  of reenlistment code are 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 I through 4.  Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles  15 and a Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct including providing alcohol to underage minors, underage drinking, storing unauthorized weapons in his dormitory room, leaving the duty section without informing a noncommissioned officer, and losing a tool.
At the time of the discharge, member waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  Additionally, the records disclosed member entered the military on a moral waiver due to pre-service marijuana use on three occasions, arrest and convection for petty larceny, and that he had been fired from a civilian job due to poor attendance.  The DRB opined that while in service, the unit's administrative actions had given the applicant ample opportunity to change his negative behavior, without positive result.  The Board concluded his misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found
to be appropriate.

Applicant cites his desire for post-service employment in law enforcement, or to reenter military service. While the DRB commends applicant on these aspirations, they don't comprise an inequity or impropriety or provide a basis for upgrade.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Applicant also cited his desire to receive the G.l. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on December 2, 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.

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	

I