--

;

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

l'--"-"'-C...O.'"",i11".s"E"..·L.··.............. NAMJO OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

_J

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.36

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFJCATION
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

	FD-2004-00011
A)ll>l:JCANT'S lSS\Ji;< AND :riiel'lll)AIU>'S DECISiONALRATlONALARE  DISCUSSED ON TlIBATTACHED AiR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARti DECISlONAt.. RA'flONALE

.   '-:.:·,	.:o_.:       •	_,,_	_ ,

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

.• - -•- = - - - - - - - - - - - - - "·- - - - - - - - - - =--= .... - - - - - - - a .- - _ fl.,_ - - - - - - - - - - - '"' ------------

_ _ ....

TO:

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

INDORSEMENT

FROM,

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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-2004-00011	

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  and  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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, seven Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and two Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The misconduct included failure to obey a lawful order, failure to go, dereliction of duty, unsatisfactory performance, late for work, missing inspection, and departing the local  area without approved leave. The DRB opined that through these 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. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3.  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,  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