AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

· --- .,. .,., ..,nn• I< INITIAL)

GRADE

TYPE GEN

AB
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

I ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION (ff COUNSF.L

x
-·.····.\ ·C2'.'1i=

MOU: 611UJIJ': J10A.R.D
-	"""o--=·1•11"'··	···1•  ..----""-------.----·""'""	I

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.11 AOI.17 AOl.47 AOI.42 A99.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

I	ORDER APPOfNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION 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 PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

27 Jan 2006

CASE NUl\'IBER

FD-2004-00460

Case heard at Washington, D.C.  The appl icant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) via video teleconference between the Florida State Armory, St. Augustine, Florida and Andrews AFB, MD on 27 January 2006 but declined to exercise this right.

Advise appl icant 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 appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

SIGNAT1l   F n"' D	s

-,,  -  ......., _ .._,.l l....l
.,.......,......,,,..,..,......,,,,.........,..,,,,,,......,..........,..,,.,..........,..,,.,.......,.......,....... 	

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00460	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) via video  teleconference  between  the Florida State Armory, St. Augustine, Florida and Andrews AFB, MD 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends he was denied his G.I. Bill educational benefits.  He also contends his recruiter lied to him about his military career and that he was not promoted in grade after basic and technical school training based upon his pre-service participation in the Army JROTC Officer program and the JROTC Rifle Tcam.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant and his confusion about the nature of his military career but determined that these issues were not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 2.  The applicant alleged his supervisor made racial statements and was racially biased.  The Board noted that the disciplinary actions against the applicant was undertaken by individuals other than the supervisor identified by the applicant.  Despite the applicant's assertions, the Board found no evidence of racial bias in the applicant's discharge.

Issue 3.  Finally, the applicant contends that he was "wronged" by this discharge.  He further asserted that he hadn't received correctional custody or any type of discharge hearing.  The applicant is correct in his assertion.  However, his commander was not obligated to punish him with correctional custody under either Article 15, UCMJ action taken against him and the Board believed that sufficient rehabilitative processing was conducted by the applicant's unit prior to his discharge.  In addition, because the commander recommended the applicant's separation with a general discharge, the applicant was not a noncommissioned officer, and the applicant had not served more than six years, he had no discharge board entitlement.  The Board concluded that the applicant's misconduct, as especially reflected in his numerous offenses under Article 86, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was also found to be appropriate.

Issue 4.  The Board noted that the applicant's Air Force Overseas Short Tour Ribbon and his Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon were not reflected in his commander's recommendation for discharge or the base level legal review.  The Board concluded, however, that these omissions did not amount to prejudicial error.

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