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

;1r rmm

AIC

1	15]1 Ir   f .

TYPE UOTH

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDru:SS AND OR ORGANIZATJON  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING
----- ---------------------------------- ·--- '

HON

GEN

UOTl-IC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

-------------------------------------------- '·

JSSUES

A94.53 A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

1	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 OATE	CASE NUMBER

01 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00273

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.

:--------------	----- ------------l ..-.1._--- ------- --------------- .t:::?------------------------·:;---

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

SECRETARY  OF THE AlR FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE OISCHARGE REVlEW BOARO
1535 COMMAND OR, EE WL"IG, 3RO 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-2004-00273

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for his discharge, and to change his 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 leading 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 impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense.  The records indicate the applicant confessed to stealing four tires and rims from a car dealership and to stealing four tires and rims from a vehicle located at a car parts store; civilian authorities apparently prosecuted member for these crimes.
Unfortunately, most of 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 bases for the discharge.  The Board was however able to determine that at that time of the discharge processing member offered an unconditional waiver of his right to have his case heard by an administrative discharge board, and declined to submit any matters in his own behalf.  A review of applicant's medical records and remaining documentation in his Unit Personnel Record Group failed to disclose any information pertinent to his discharge, although it was noted he had a pre-service arrest for vandalism and had been fired from a civilian place of employment for failing to go to work.  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 w:as 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 return to military service as justification for upgrade.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact his reenlistment code 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.

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