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

AI C	 AFSN/SSAN 			
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW		
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  Of  COUNSEL	

[- --    ------------	-R_s_I_T_T_I_N_G	-+	H  O_

--···-- -··----- ··---- ··----  	

_ _+-_GE_N -t-_u_·o_T_H_Ct_o_rnER_ -+ -E_N_Y_· -I

x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.15 AOl.13 A94.0l A92.35 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.l0

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

CASE NUMBER

03 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00268

I
Case heard at Washi ngton, D.C.

Ad vise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.
I

I
·...

·----	·..

···----- ··----- ···

(EF-V2)	Previous ed it i on i,vill be used

•

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE Nllr\tBE:R

FD-2004-00268	

GENERA L:	The  appl icant  appeals  for  upgrade  of discharge  to honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the 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 lead ing 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 im propriet y that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES:

Issues 1, 4, 6, 7 & 8.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He also felt most of his infractions were minor, and in some cases that the evidence of record did not support the resultant discipl inary actions. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, six Letters of Reprimand , two Letters of Counseling, four Records oflndividual Counseli ng, three armed forces traffic tickets, and five Memoranda for Record documenting misconduct.  His infractions included multiple incidents of being late for duty, multiple traffic violations, weight management program failure, lying,
mi suse of a governmen t computer, a security viol ation, making a false official statement, intentiona l discharge of a government  firearm  resulti ng in damage to government property,  and driving while intoxicated  for which  arrested  by civilian law enforcement officials.   His last Enlisted  Perfonnance  R eport was rated  an overall  referral  "2" and documented  his failure to comply with standards, repeatedly poor
decision-mak ing, lack of understandi ng of and commitment to good order and discipline, and overall incom patibil i t y with the mi l itary way oflife. The DRB opined that throu gh the uni t 's extensi ve
administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportuni ties to change his negati ve behavior and was
unwi lling or unable to do so. The Board concluded the miscond uct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all mil itary members and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2 & 3.  A pplicant  contends that his discharge constituted punishing him twice for the same incident, and that i t was unfai r because he was discharged with less than a fully honorable discharge so close to his expiring tem1 of service.  Applicant also noted the long-term effects his character of servi ce is having on hi s abi l ity to find post-service employment.   It should be noted that administrati ve separat ion is an action that severs t he m ilitary status of an indi vid ual and characterizes his service, but is not the same as punishment rendered h y a jud icial or non-judicial  punishment  proceed ing.  The discharge regulations clearly gave his  cha i n of command  authori ty to recommend  administrati vel y discharging him based on unsui tabili ty for further m i l itary servi ce as a result of hi s serious and repeated mi sconduct.  Facts and circumstances are
d i fferen t i n each action and must be judged  on a case-by-case basis.  In doing so, a commander m ust consid er t he seriousness of the miscond uct and how a mem ber's retention  might affect good order,
d isci pl i ne, and morale, as wel l as t he mcm bcr "s age and experience, past record of service, and rehabi l i tat i ve poten t i a l.  Comm i ssion of a series of serious offenses over a 3-year period clearl y established appl ica nt 's
u nsui t abi l i t v for fort hcr Air Force service.  A ll requi red proced ures were properl y fol lowed in this case.	

Issue 5.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation  and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of his willful miscond uct
offset any posi tive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for t he reasons which were its basis.

Applicant further inferred that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young. The DRB recogni zed the applicant was nearly 22 years of age when the discharge took place. However, 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-terrn members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct and successfully complete their enlistments without misconduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant 's discharge was appropriate due to his misconduct.

The applicant cited his desire to recei ve the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefi ts, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on January 29, 2000) that he understood  he must recei ve an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.
The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequi ty or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge R eview Board concludes that the discharge  was  consistent  with  the proced ural and substanti ve requi rements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the appl icant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing find ings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, th us the applicant's discharge should not be changed.
Attachment: Examiner's Brief