AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
SRA	
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

'	'

---------------------------------------
'	'

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x

':----·	t--	-+-	---t	---t	-t--
x
-------------------------------------- ·

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

A64.00

APPLlCA TION  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

30 Jul 2004

FD-2004-00071

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 .

·

'........	J  .UOCCC.""'-_/)_    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

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, 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-2004-00071	

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 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh; he feels it was based on a single isolated incident.  The records indicated the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand, 9 months apart, both for civilian convictions based on separate and distinct off-base criminal behavior.  He also had an Unfavorable Information File and was placed on the Control Roster.  As a result of the first conviction, for disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and menacing, member was fined $250.00, plus $250.00 court costs, with a 30-day suspended jail sentence, and a separate one year jail sentence, also suspended for 2 years on good behavior.  His second conviction for theft from an off-base sporting goods store resulted in suspended 3-year supervised probation sentence.  Additionally, member had written eight dishonored checks and was sent to budget counseling twice.  While these matters were not used as a basis for discharge, they were cited as additional derogatory data and could be used for characterization of service.
The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, and civilian court convictions, applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so.  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 contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB nevertheless concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct that occurred during his period of service.  While the Board is sympathetic to the negative
impact of a general discharge, this is not a reason that suggests an inequity or impropriety that 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