AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

YES
x

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN
RECORD 'REVIEW
ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

------ --------- ---	...--"'	I

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A94.53

INDEX :NUMBER

A67.09

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF 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

15 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00189

Case heard at Washington, D.C., via video-teleconference  at Randolph AFB TX.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

---- - ------ --------- ------./._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _f'.:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...::z_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,

.

-------------------------------------------------------      ·.

TO;

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

FROM

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

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2004-00189

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared  and testified via video teleconference  at Randolph  AFB,  TX before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) which met at Andrews AFB, MD, on November  15, 2004.  He was represented
f the Texas Veterans Commission.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of 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.

The applicant's representative stated that the applicant did not have a material issue with the discharge action. The applicant is seeking an honorable discharge and a change in reenlistment code so that he may enlist in the Army.

The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, and a Letter of Reprimand. The first Article 15 was for an attempt to unlawfully enter the dormitory room of a fellow airman. The applicant explained that he was trying to leave the airman information so that the airman would contact him to sell him a cell phone.
The applicant was found guilty and received forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months. He received  a Letter of Reprimand for violation of security standards and not maintaining his dorm room according to standards. He was also returned to Phase I status. The applicant was required to remain on base, in proper uniform during his time in Phase I. He received the second Article 15 for failure to go, failure to remain on base, failure to remain in uniform, and false official statement. The applicant was ordered to help clean up a building. Instead, the applicant attended an off-base church, in civilian clothes. Upon his return to base, he
was seen by an NCO.  In response to the NCO's inquiry, the applicant falsely stated that he was in Phase III, indicating that it was allowable for him to be in civilian clothes.  The DRB noted that the second Article 15 occurred less than six months after his first offense.  They were concerned that the first offense indicated a lack of trustworthiness.   The Board also considered the applicant's second offense a serious matter because it involved failure to perform his duty and untruthfulness.   The characterization of the discharge received by
the applicant was found to be appropriate.

The applicant testified that he is working and attending college classes.  He performs volunteer services for his church and the local VA hospital.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of  the hearing.  The Board concluded that the characterization of the applicant's service was appropriate.

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