AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

IITIAL)

GRADE

AMN
x
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICAT!ON 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
PER:)ONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE  NUMBER

03 Feb 2005	FD-2004-00362

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

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

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD IS35 COl\.IMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-VZ)	Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE       FD-2004-00362

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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s for obtaining telephone and electric services by using another person's name, and for writing a bad check. In addition, he received a Letter of Counseling for financial irresponsibility. 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.

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