AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
lll!mll .   •111r

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN
!UPI•

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING·'

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

A93. 11	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

06 Aug 2004

CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00132

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Ad vise 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.

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-2004-00132	

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

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,   change  of  reason   and   authority   for  discharge,   and  change  of reenlistment code are 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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He stated he had financial problems because his wife was diagnosed with cancer and could no longer work to help pay the bills.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, five Letters of Reprimand, had an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the Control Roster for misconduct.  His infractions included writing numerous bad checks, failing to pay various bills, making a false official statement, and a domestic altercation.  Applicant was recommended for discharge in October 2002, and in
his reply to that action, he explained the circumstances of his misconduct, and apparently dissuaded his commander from processing the discharge, thus giving him another chance to prove he could be a productive airman without further misconduct.  Unfortunately he had three additional incidents within the next 3 months and so his commander once again decided to recommend him for discharge.  At the time of the second recommendation, member consulted counsel and again made a statement in his own behalfrequesting retention.  In neither of his replies to either discharge recommendation did member state anything regarding his wife's medical condition or ability to work.  The explanations for his financial misconduct never concerned the contention he brings to the DRB now.  The DRB opined that through the unit's many	
administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unable
or unwilling to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the discharge characterization applicant received was 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.  However, this information does not pertain to his period of service and no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the record review.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

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