AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
•	1 NA E- OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
•	
I•TYPE GEN·

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC
x

RECORD REVIEW

•1m111r

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

ISSUES

A94.11

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

A93.33	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

HEARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

06 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00108

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 .

...••m-·	..l.2=:0'4.d....1 ---·---- --m·----·...................
'	'
'	'

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET	, 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-2004-00108	

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.

Issue 1.  Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicate applicant received four Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, a Record oflndividual Counseling and one Letter of Admonishment.   His misconduct included making a false official statement, disrespect to a non­ commissioned officer, a separate incident of insubordination to a noncommissioned  officer, being late to work, repeat parking violations, not following directions, and not registering his vehicle on base.  Applicant states he felt discriminated against at his final duty station because he had gold teeth which brought him under close scrutiny.  He believes the situations he was involved in would have been handled differently had it been someone else.  The records review failed to substantiate this contention.  The misconduct did occur and it was within the chain of command's discretion to discipline member and to administratively discharge him for those multiple infractions.  The DRB opined that through the unit's many 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.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  While the Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 3.  Applicant infers that he should not be penalized indefinitely by his discharge.  The DRB noted the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was the same age as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

lf he can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe chooses to do so, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments and 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 1s discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief