,

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE IMTIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

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

ISSUES

A92.21

MEMBER SITTING

INDE.X NUMBER

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

A67. 10

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00345

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel. DD Form 149 submitted. The case will be forwarded to the AFBCMR for further processing.

.	'

.	·····---- .,,.;J..........,,-::;...................................................•'

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSON:'<rlEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20792-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUIBER

FD-2004-00345	

GENERAL:	The applicant 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 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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles  15, two Letters of Reprimand, and a Record oflndividual Counseling for misconduct. His infractions included five instances of failure to go, and financial irresponsibility.  In an effort to help him correct his behavior, member was entered on the Control Roster twice.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior but was unable or unwilling to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.   However, this is not a basis of inequity or impropriety on which to justify an upgrade, and none was found in the course of the record review.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3. The applicant cited his desire to return to military service as justification for upgrade. While the Board commends applicant on this aspiration and was sympathetic to the impact his reenlistment code was having on the applicant, this is also 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