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

TYPE GEN

AMN
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

IU8t IUlT

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

..........................................'•

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x x

SSUES

A92.21 A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICA TJON 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

19 May 2004	FD-2004-00055

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.

 	.-- --	iI "
1-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J_ ------------:_ _ _,(. _ _ _ _ ,:_'f::.-""-' ------------- ----- ----- --- '"--- --- ----- ----- --- ----- --- --.-------
'	'

TO:

SAF/MRBR

/	/I

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

550 C STREET WEST, S:l)ITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I 50-4742

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  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-2004-00055	
GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and to change the reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, one Record of Individual Counseling, had an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the Control Roster for misconduct. His infractions included three instances of failure to go, two instances of dereliction of duty, a failed dorm room inspection, two dress and appearance violations, and failure to get a base vehicle decal. Member also had an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "3". It spoke of his lack of discipline to meet minimum standards, lapses in judgment and task follow-through, and the requirement for close supervision. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. He now contends he was young and immature, which predicated his misconduct, which he takes full responsibility for. The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling or unable to do so. 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 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The ORB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and attending college.  However, this does not pertain to his period of service nor provide a basis for upgrade; no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the record.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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, on
August 30, 2000) 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 that warrants 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