-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

AI C	••••• I11

NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAl'i	 	

TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COU:'llSF.l	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR  ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

- - ---

.·	VOTE OF TllE BOARD
MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSl'ES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

'	.	EXHIBJlS  SUBMITTED  10THE  BOARD
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 SUBM!TTED AT TlME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING   DATE	CASE l'•l'MBER

14 Jan 2005	FD-2004-00361
APPLICANT'S  rssueAND THE'BOARD'StJE.ClSIONAL RATlONAL AR. E DISCVSSED 00N THE AJTACHlil> AlR ".FORCE J)J$f:HAAGE'REvlEW BOARDDE.ClSlONAL RATldNALE
.	.

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 subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

, c

/'.	/'...l	'I	,	""'"L,,.

'	'""''
I

o••o •   ••••i<	z
I

.  .	IND(}RSEMEN'f	.	. ... '	·.· .	DATE:  111412005
TO:	FROM:
SAFIMRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIE\\' BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WNG, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	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-2004-00361	

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 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 that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, four Letters of Counseling, and one Memorandum for Record for misconduct.  The misconduct included failure to go, dereliction of duty, sexual discrimination, absent  without authority, failure to obey a lawful regulation by viewing pornography on the internet, accessing unofficial websites, and placing personal advertisements on the internet.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the 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.

Issue 3. The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on February 2, 1992) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is 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