NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AB
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
............... .............. .............. .............. .... _

......... .............. ....

_,	HON

_,_    GEN  _,  UOTHC   .._OT H ER  -+-D-ENY -I
x x x x
x

I	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	

pearance with/without counsel, and the right to

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

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

-- ----1-----------------
HEARIJliG DATE	CASF. NUMBER

26 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00255

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal ap submit an application to the AFBCMR.

----------------------------------- ----------- -1'.l ..-------------------

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
lSJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3.RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB., MD 2.0"lfil·"l!l!ll

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00255	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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 conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Member received three Articles  15 and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct. His offenses included a civilian arrest for driving while intoxicated, driving on revocation, wrongful use of his government travel card for personal purposes, and an extra­ marital affair. When recommended for administrative discharge,  the  member  submitted  a  conditional waiver of his right to a board hearing in hopes of receiving a general discharge. When that was denied, he submitted an unconditional waiver of his right to a board hearing, and he failed to submit statements in his own behalf. The board noted member had several Enlisted Performance Reports, one of which  was  a referral du_e to his repeated misconduct. Member was age 19 to 23 when his . misconduct occurred, essentially the same age as other airmen who complete their enlistments without disciplinary infractions, and there was no evidence he did not know right from wrong. Member had ample opportunity to change his negative behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so. Therefore, the Board found the record supports the characterization of service received.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young and notes his achievements since leaving the service. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well. However, this does not provide a basis of inequity or impropriety which warrants an upgrade. The Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. 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 also is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant 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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief