AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
·	SRA	jll ••	I
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL·  '  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR.ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

VOTE OF .mE'BOARD

··. '- .>_··,'.:-·': :

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x
x x
I
x
x
J......-----.M. - ,.. ......      -:.. -     .. .-.:.    ..	.•...--··...,.._,.,._ .. , ·-
ISSUE.S	A92.19	INDEX NUMBER	A67.50	· EXHIBITS SUBMITTED to THE BORD
A94.05	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	'··
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 May 2005	FD-2004-00436
AP. PLlC:AN>r/::s·'lS,. SU'.'E A.N. P..l'l!E BO' ARD'S DEC·. IS. IONA,L. RA. T. ION.· AL ARE DJSCU. SSED ONTH. E A:TTACHED AlR. F.ORCE DISCBA.RGE REV. IEW.  .BOARD. DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video-teleconference with St. Augustine, Florida.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

I
'

--

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 5117/2005
· -····-·	-·---··	-•r--	·a·-
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE ,\JR FORCF;rF:RSON'iEL COllNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  R£VJ£W  BO,\RD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 CO.\lIAND DR. EE WING. JR!) FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	.NDREWS AF13, MD 20762-7002

AFJ-IQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition will  be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00436	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video­ teleconference between St. Augustine, Florida, and Andrews AFB, Maryland on 17 May 2005.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The applicant testified that his family was under extraordinary stress at the time of his discharge and that his decision not to fight the discharge action was due to his desire to return to the U.S. and help his wife with her business.  The  applicant explained the circumstances surrounding his writing over $5,000 worth of bad checks.  The applicant also testified that he had not committed the offenses of dereliction of duty and larceny of basic allowance for subsistence. His commander found that he had committed those offenses.  The Board was not persuaded by his explanation of how he came to write bad checks and the relationship between the supposed reasons for the checks being dishonored (that his wife was robbed and took money from their personal account and used it to supplement their business account) and the timing of the checks which were dishonored.  The records showed that during his career the applicant received three nonjudicial punishment
actions and a vacation of suspended punishment.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and/or convince his chain of
command that he had not, in fact, committed criminal acts. His current regret for his past eagerness to obtain a discharge is an insufficient basis to overturn his discharge and characterization of service. The Board is unable to speculate on the outcome had he chosen to fight the discharge at the time.  The Board concluded
his misconduct was a significant depmiure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant implies 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 perfom1ance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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