AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

AME,,OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
P	I  t

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

'

HON

x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x

x

--------------------------------------

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.09

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-2004-00067

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.

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-0006 7	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but dedined 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.

Issue 1. Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, two Letters of Reprimand, an Administrative Reprimand, and had an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the Control Roster due to misconduct.  His infractions included driving on a suspended license, writing five bad checks to the Defense Accounting and Finance System totaling $710.00 while deployed to Southwest Asia, failing to pay a just debt, failure to go to scheduled training, using his government travel card for unofficial purposes, and failing to pay the resultant balance.  Additionally, member had three Enlisted Performance Reports during the enlistment in question, one rated an overall "3" and the other two both rated overall "2" referrals.  These reports detailed member's financial irresponsibility and unsatisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program.  Applicant contends his financial problems while overseas were due to his wife having withdrawn funds from their account due to a family emergency, a condition applicant was unaware of when he wrote the bad checks.  He further contends those debts were all paid before the deployment ended.  With regard to the government  travel card abuse, applicant contends he remained an additional day in his TDY location and used the card
for gasoline, although his reply to the Article 15 at that time indicated he was having financial difficulties due to a pending divorce.  In view of the pattern of misconduct over a 16-month period, the DRB could not substantiate applicant's contentions at this time and opined that through the administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  Applicant's personal problems did not appear to be any different or more significant than those endured by other service members who adhere to the standards expected of them.  Thus the Board found them of insufficient mitigation or extenuation to warrant an upgrade.  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 found to be appropriate.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job and is serving his country as a DoD contractor overseas.  However, this
accomplishment does not directly pertain to his period of service or offer a basis of inequity or impropriety	
on which to grant an upgrade.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Ifhe can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issues, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.	

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