AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

AB
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING
- - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- -	-

-------1--_HcO:N

--+-

G-EN -+

U-OTHC-+-OTHER

+-DENY  -1

- - - ----- - - - - ;-----
x
x x x

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

'''	x

ISSUES

A92.19 A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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 SUBMIITED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00337

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.

-----------------------------------_ 2_ ------------,_ _ ;2_ --------------------------""'--------------------------,

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMA."ID DR. EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00337	

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

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 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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant implies discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and notes a prior period of honorable service.  The records indicated during the enlistment under review, the applicant received two  , Articles 15 and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct which included failing to vacate an apartment as scheduled and paying the back rent and late fees owed, stealing about $2400.00 from a deployed noncommissioned officer for whom he was house-sitting, being absent without leave for 8 days, and  misusing his government travel card for personal reasons.  The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling or unable to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members; they found the seriousness of such willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case, and that the characterization of the discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant notes he was undergoing a divorce and trying to settle into a new job, which negatively impacted him. While the Board recognized these problems may have had some bearing on applicant's difficulties, they did not find them of sufficient mitigation to explain his misconduct. The applicant did not provide evidence as to how his personal problems were unique or unusual from other similarly situated airmen who successfully complete their enlistments without misconduct. Member became an administrative burden on his unit and a disruptive influence on morale and discipline. Therefore the characterization of his service was deemed appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:	The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the