AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEM BER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

ii1i11DI

rr m•nm	a

A J C

111'1111 •

TYPE   GEN	PERSONAL   A PPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSt:L AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECOR D REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NllMBl:ll.

A67.10

x x x
x

I	ORDER APPOrNTrNG TH F HOARD

---------
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISCIIARGE
3	l.FTTFR OF NOTIFICATION	 	
4		HRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 	 COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EX! IIBITS SUHMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONA!. APPEARANCE

llf:ARING  DATE	CASE NUMBf:R

29 Jun 2004	FD-2004-00130

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 A FBCMR

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

--- ='-2 r;::,;L

'· ' '::::::::

I

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

In view of the foregoing find ings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for u pgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONAl,E	CASE NllMBER

FD-2004-00130	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains avail able pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:   Upgrade of discharge is deni ed.
ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that because of outsourcing, company closing and reduced income from hi s job, he would like to receive the G.I. Bill benefits. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and a Vacation action under the UCMJ. The DRS opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was  a  significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge recei ved by the applicant was found to be appropriate. The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justi fication for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement 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 which would warrant an upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concl udes that the  discharge  was  consi stent  with  the proced ural and substantive requi rements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provi ded full administrative due process.