GRADE

AMN

INDEX NUMBER	A67.00

2

3

4

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

.._

AFSN/SSAN

..

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

-•••••••••••••••••••••••m	-m	- -------------+------+----+-----+------+	1
x x x x
x

\ I

---------------------------------------------

ISSUES

A92.21
A93.0l	1

-l
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
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

01 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00205

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 .

.------------------	----- ----	--- -"--	.1:1../.............................,
'	' 	

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WE

ITE 40

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE URSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW 80ARD 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-2004-00205	
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 misconduct.  The records indicate the applicant received two Articles 15, one for fraudulently obtaining taxi services from a foreign national while pretending he would pay the fare, and the other for conspiring with a civilian cashier of the Army Air Force Exchange Service to commit larceny, and through the conspiracy, stealing merchandise.  Unfortunately, member's discharge processing files were unavailable to the Board for review due to being missing from the record.  Because member's discharge file was unavailable to the Board for review, the Board was unable to conclusively ascertain if there was other misconduct on member's part that formed additional basis for the discharge.  The Board also could not determine if member consulted counsel or submitted statements on his own behalf at the time of the discharge.  When requested to provide any pertinent information he may have about the discharge file or his record of service, applicant failed to respond.  A review of applicant's medical records and remaining documentation in his Unit Personnel Record Group disclosed an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "1"which documented substandard duty performance, lack of motivation, numerous missed appointments, failure to improve after repeated counselings, and the need for constant supervision.  Member was also referred for alcohol abuse evaluation by his commander after involvement in a bar fight, and then entered into the substance abuse rehabilitation program.   Furthermore, member disclosed between two to four incidents of pre-service marijuana use.  Lacking documented evidence from the applicant to the  contrary, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper and without basis for an upgrade.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  No inequity or impropriety could be found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.L Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  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.

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

Issue 4 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well.  However, this is also not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The Board concluded 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