AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
•

NAME OF SERVICE)!EMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE 11'1TIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

YES	:"tlo
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

AB
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

I	.
ILl    r - - - -	-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

A67.30

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	.'J'PLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITJONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARA'lCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

08 Dec 2004

FD-2004-00294

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-	---	····· ··..

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COU:'.'ICIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  RE\'1EW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE \\'ING, 3RD FLOOR
A:"t!DREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE l\"UMBER

FD-2004-00294	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense. Pursuant to his guilty pleas, member was convicted at Special Court Martial in July 2003 of nine specifications of wrongful appropriation and one specification of stealing, all from his active duty roommate, who was deployed at the time. Member wrote nine checks totaling $873.00 out of his roommate's account, over a 2-month period. He also stole 33 compact discs. This misconduct occurred at his second duty station. He was sentenced to a reduction of three pay grades, forfeitures, and 163 days confinement. At the time of the administrative discharge processing, applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf noting he had made restitution, apologizing for his actions, and requesting retention. The records also disclosed member had two Enlisted Performance  Reports, one from his first duty station that documented his consistent lack of motivation, slow adaptation to the military way of life, financial irresponsibility, and weight management problems. It was also during that first assignment that he was denied a good conduct medal in June 2001, and was decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program for a pattern of disciplinary problems, financial irresponsibility, and non-adherence to standards. Additionally, member also apparently participated in the motivation flight in April 2002, and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) in January 2003 for missing a mandatory physical training formation. He recived two more LORs for disrespect to a senior noncommissioned officer, making a threat, and being unprepared for duty. The Board noted member repeatedly committed very serious acts of misconduct that had a tendency to bring discredit to the armed forces and for which he could have received a punitive discharge. Member was over age 21 when his court martial offenses occurred, essentially the same age as other airmen who complete their terms of service honorably with no such record of criminal behavior. There was no evidence applicant did not know right from wrong, so he was responsible for his actions and properly held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant noted his desire to return to military service. While the Board is sympathetic to the impact of the reenlistment code on applicant's aspirations, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety on which to base and 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