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

am I •••111•trr r	AlC

n n•Hill rl

TYPE  GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
.------------------------------------------    .

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.53 AOl.13 A92.37

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	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

19 May 2004	FD-2004-00057

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.

l
----------------- ---------- ----------------,/()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 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-2004-00057	

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 I - 3.  Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct.  His
infractions included writing five bad checks totaling over $750.00, four dress and appearance violations, and violating a no contact order regarding Mr. MH.  Applicant was involved in an initially friendly relationship with Mr. MH, who began frequently asking applicant for money.  Over a period of time, applicant gave Mr. MH a significant amount of money, which negatively impacted his ability to pay his bills.  Applicant continued to give Mr. MH money after he determined he shouldn't be doing so because he was afraid of bodily harm from Mr. MH.  In recognition of the deteriorating situation between applicant and Mr. MH, and to protect applicant, applicant's chain of command gave him a no contact order and very explicit instructions on what to do if Mr. MH initiated contact, to include who applicant was to call for assistance or to inform of the unsolicited contact.  Applicant failed to follow those instructions, contrary to his own best interest.  He further failed to make a police complaint against Mr. MH, although strongly urged to do so by his chain of command.  His commander further noted that his integrity had been breached by "countless lies about his financial status."  When the command helped him obtain a $2,000.00 signature loan to pay his debts, he gave half of it to Mr. MH.  After having unsuccessfully exhausted all possible avenues to assist applicant extricate himself from the situation with Mr. MH, the command felt it in the best interest of the Air Force and the member to administratively separate applicant.  The DRB opined that through the unit's extensive administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling 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.

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