Am FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

YES	Ntt
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANiiATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS A:'l"D OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
·----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··-

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x

:. ---	-+	t--	-+	-+	t--	-1

ISSUES A92.35 A92.21 A93.01

:

INDEX NUMBER	A67.90

x
x x x

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCATlON FOR REVJEW OF DlSCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATJON
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
2	
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMJTIED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

. HEARING DATE	CASE  NUMBER

	FD-2004-00005

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 .

...... ....	....2../.7.....F..l...fl.- --·········-- IL.il.../.l•••••....••••,.

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 29762- 7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition wi11 be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00005	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals to upgrade discharge to honorable 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 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.

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was based on one isolated incident. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and six Letters of Reprimand for misconduct that included underage drinking, failure to go, reporting to duty without his required equipment, stealing personal property of another military member, failing to maintain his quarters in a sanitary condition, and stealing government property from the dormitory. Additionally, member had an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "2" that noted his off-duty behavior was continually below standards. The DRB opined that through the unit's many administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative
behavior and he was unwilling or unable to do so. 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.

Issues 2 and 4. Applicant infers that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when younger. The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 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 discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's desire to reenter military service. While the DRB commends the applicant on this aspiration, it does not comprise an inequity or impropriety in his discharge or offer a basis for upgrade. The Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

At the time of the discharge, member cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification to receive an honorable separation. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on March 22, 1999) that he understood he must receive an honorable	

discharge to receive future educational entitlements.

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