AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

1'A'1E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AIC
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	OEN Y
x x x x
x

ISSll f'.S

A92.21 A93.11 A93.0'7

INDEX '.'ll UMBER

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

-·-----------r--------------------+-+	1
HEA:UNG  DA TE	CASE NUMUER

05 Jan 2005
rffi	{

FD-2004-00353

Case heard at Washington, D.C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Bom·d, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

10:

SECRETARY OF IBE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

A FHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00353	

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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, five Letters of Reprimand, had an Unfavorable Information File, had been placed  on the Control Roster, and his last Enlisted Performance Report was rated an overall referral "2." Almost all of his infractions were for financial irresponsibility, with the last Article 15 being for several instances of failure to go.   At one point, member was more than 60 days past due on an Army Air Force Exchange Service Deferred Payment Program debt, which totaled over $2,000.00 at that time.  He also had two civilian
judgments rendered against him and defaulted on at least one of those.  The record reflects that member was sent to financial management counseling twice over an 8-month period, with a budget being set up for him each time.  But he failed to follow instructions given him in order to bring his finances under control.  He also was sent to Consumer Credit Counseling and received a grant from the Air Force Aid society to repair an inoperable vehicle.  The Board opined that through the unit's extensive rehabilitative and administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant cited marital problems as contributing to his misconduct. While it is understandable that someone in that situation has more stress, applicant failed to show how his marital problems were different and more stressful than other similarly situated airmen who successfully complete their enlistments without misconduct. Applicant also failed to demonstrate that he sought assistance from base agencies such as the Family Support Center, chaplaincy, or Mental Health clinic, for helping to address these stressors. Thus the Board found them of insufficient mitigation or extenuation to justify an upgrade.

Issue 3 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 that warrants a change in his discharge, and none was suggested or found in the course of the record review.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

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