A IR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

AMN
X	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

:"lAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA TJON	ADDRESS A1"D OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUJliSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN
....----- ....----- ....----- ....--------------------+-----+----+----+------+----!
x
x x x
x
--------- ··----- ··----- ··-----

ISSUES

A93.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.IO

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COlf'.lSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARA.NCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARJNG DATE	CASE  JliUMBER

28 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00367

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.

'

-------------------	----- ----,(']_ _ _ ,_--	------------------------------------------------------------     ·
'

''
---··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··------J

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
A[R FORCE DISCIL.\.RGf  REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, JRD FLOOR 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-2004-00367	

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 I .  Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and had a civilian conviction for misconduct.  His infractions included failure to go, a leave policy violation, shoplifting, and abusing his Security Forces position off base.  At the time of discharge, member consulted counsel but waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The DRB opined that through the unit's 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 the discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2.  The applicant noted he was told his discharge could be upgraded in six months.  The DRB noted  that while a discharge may be upgraded after six months, an upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

Issue 3.  Applicant notes his desire to receive veterans' health benefits for stress fractures incurred in Basic Military Training School (BMTS).  While the medical record confirms that member was periodically evaluated for his stress fractures, which were discovered by a bone scan conducted while he was in technical training, he was never sent to a medical evaluation board as a result of this problem, it was never deemed to be unfitting, and it was not raised as a potential bar to administrative discharge during his separation physical, nor by the applicant at the time of his discharge.  Therefore the Board concluded this issue is without merit and that the reason for the discharge received by the applicant was 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