AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

-- "-nuu·. MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

J'EKbUNAL AJ'J'EAKA! CE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ.r\TION OF COUNSEL

ISSUES

A94.0l

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A67.90

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

A92.21 A92.01 A92. 19 A94.05

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DIBCHARGE
3	IETIER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S REIBASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

11 Mar 2005

CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00435

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.	

	
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FEl'SONNt:L COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD -
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFll. 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-2004-00435	
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 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and if his conduct was "patterned discreditable with military authorities, then he should have received extra duty, possible correctional actions, and/or reduction in rank prior to the final hours of his enlistment."  The records indicated the applicant received two Article  l Ss, three Letters of Reprimand, nine Letters of Counseling, and       several Memorandums for Record for misconduct.   The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and 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, letters of recommendation 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 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, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the review.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately
characterized his term of service.

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
September 19, 1987) 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.

Inview 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. The Board noted the member's DD Form 214 is in error and has requested corrective actions from the appropriate office. Member's DD Form 214 should reflect  a General Discharge  for a Pattern  of Misconduct  - Conduct Prejudicial  to Good	

Order and Discipline instead of Misconduct - A Pattern of Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities. Additionally, the Board noted the member's AF Form 100, Request for Authorization for Separation, Special Order AA-834, dated 5 Feb 90, was also erroneously marked in Block 14, indicating honorable discharge instead of the approved general discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief