AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN	
	Alv1N	111 11•11••	

TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW	 	
· . :: O.ciNSiSL':. _ -_,_-   NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS  At'•D  OH.  ORGANIZATION   OF  COlJNS.EL YES	No
x
VOTEOl' THE BOARD	.
MEMBER   SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x
·--	x
x x
-	
ISSUES	JNDEX NU1VIBER	.	.·-.

---	. .	EXHIBITS SUBMCTTED TO THE BOARD
A93.0l	A67.10
A94.05	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A93.09	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
AOOITIONAL EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARA.NCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Mar 2005	FD-2004-00430

_  .  ,,,	·- --	---- -- ··;::··	,,,	' , ._.	.

APPL!CAt-/l''S'l_SstJE:M!o:THE BOARIYS 0 DECISI0NAL-RAT10NAL-ARE DIS.CUSSED Ol'f Tttp ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RA;:ooNAL):	.
'" '" '"'-"	-       ' ' '     _-            -    _·,,,  --      -	-	, _   - -	-	,•  '"  ",	-	'   '	, _  · _

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.

.	.; .,_.	, . ,_    _ -   _._ ,_

·.	.·

·.·      INDORSEMENT

...

DATE:  J/I7/2005

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OFTllE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	JSJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RO t"LOOR
RANOOLPH  AFB, TX 78 lS0-4742	ANDRE\VS At"B, l\lD 10762-700?

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition \Vill be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00430	
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 ri ght.

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 contends discharge was inequitable because i t was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, a vacation action, one Letter of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, two Records of Individual Counseling, and a traffic ticket.  His misconduct included speeding, failure to obey an order, driving with suspended driving privileges, transmitting pornographic images and sexually explicit video files via a government computer, and late for work on multiple occasions.   The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.   ,

Issues 2 and 3.  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 report and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positi ve 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 4.  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 October 29, 2001) 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.

Issue 5.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 20-21 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first­ term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization  of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct

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