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

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

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

02 Dec 2004 ·

FD-2004-00246

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the discharge review board but after acknowledging intent to appear failed to do so without requesting a postponement.

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

.	·-	- -- ··	-	··'
'	',	1
'

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WES ,	E 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY 01' T!JE AlR l'ORCE J'ERSONNEL COUNCIL AlR l'ORCE DlSCHARGE REVlEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WlNG, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS Al'B, 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-2004-00246	

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

The applicant was scheduled for a Personal Appearance before the Discharge Review Board  at Andrews AFB, MD, on December 2, 2004, but after acknowledging intent to appear, failed to do so  without requesting a postponement.

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 applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES: Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary  infractions.  During  the  enlistment  under review, she received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, had an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the Control Roster. Her misconduct included multiple incidents of failure to go, writing two bad checks, failure to obey a lawful order, dereliction of duty, and operating a motor vehicle while her license was suspended. She also had a referral Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall "2" which noted she had trouble completing tasks and needed constant supervision. Furthermore she  was permanently decertified from Personnel Reliability Program duties due to being diagnosed alcohol dependent and was admitted to an in-patient rehabilitation treatment facility for same. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived her right to submit statements in her own behalf While applicant now notes her previous period of honorable service, the Board points out that for the period of service under review, her last enlistment, her misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a general discharge. The Board noted an error in the processing of the discharge however, in that  one incident of misconduct from a previous enlistment was used to characterize member's service; this was improper because incidents from a previous enlistment may only be used to determine if a member should be discharged, but not what characterization of service should be given. The Board concluded however that this was a harmless error in that member's misconduct during the enlistment under  review  was  severe enough to warrant the general discharge, and the issuance of same was not an abuse of command discretion. The Board further noted member's breaches of discipline deviated from standards expected of all Air Force members. Such unacceptable conduct warranted the discharge  applicant received; it does not warrant an honorable characterization. The Board finds the applicant's discharge to be appropriate and in accordance with Air Force policy.

Applicant cited loss of her Veterans Administration benefits as a result of her general discharge.  The Board notes that normally, benefits earned during an earlier period of honorable service are not voided by a punitive discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions during a subsequent enlistment. (See 38 USC, Section 5303(a); US v McElroy 40 MJ 368, 372 [CMA 1994].)  Caveat:  Any person may be denied VA benefits, regardless of an earlier period of honorable service, if shown by evidence to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be guilty of treason, mutiny, sabotage, or rendering assistance to the enemy of the United States or of its allies.  (References:  38 USC, Sections 5303, 6103, 6104, 6105; 38 CFR,
Section 3.12; and, US V McElroy, 40 MJ 368 [CMA 1994])	

Ifthe applicant is concerned about receipt of G.I. Bill education benefits as justification  for upgrade, the DRB notes that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on June 2, 1997) that she understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits may be having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which warrants an upgrade.

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.

Attaclunent: Examiner's Brief