AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

rii''ml	II 72

; NAl\1F. OF'ER VICE MEMilll!     .AST, FIRST MIDT!I .r.INITIAL)

TV!'>:  GD/	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

NAMi: OF COUNSEL A.NI> U (lltGANlZ.ATlON

x

MEMllER SITTING

-- -----

--- ------ --!----'·

x
L_	x---1
J_	x

ISSUL':i	A93.0l
A94.05 A93.09

)NDEX !'iUMB.t:Jt

A67.90

,, mi:w·• } f:!.i§u.:s2  mii.'lP::rmi 9;;\!!ll2•''ij!•·' •..,,,,1
ORDER APPOl NTJ NG Tl!E BOARD     	
i  2  '   APPLICATION FOR Rl:V iCW OF DJSCHAKGc

ec3-.

LETTrR CW NOT!HCATIO:>	-	-="- - -

BR 11-cv oFPtRSONN],l >t u•	-	--

 	------ff L\!'E-RECOR )lN'. or l'ERSllN_A·--A-P--ri'ARAl•CF

< rn

.NSllL'S RELl'AsE 10 fllll lJOAR[}

.	Af lD!TlONAL E.XH IHHS SUDMITTE!l AT TJM-,E·O"F--- i

CASE :'iUl\1H¥K

18 May 2005	FD-2004-00467	
Ca,c hcal'd at Andrews AFB .\10 via vidccHcleconfercncc with St. Augustme FL

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AF13CMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.	

:	PERSONAL Al'PEAR A;;cr.

 	

SAh'MRDR
5;.0 \ STRliET W l '.s·1·. ;t1JTLl 40 RA NIJO)J>H AFO, TX 7)-; l  il-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(l'l'-V2)

S:l<('t<P'.TARY ()JI TIU:: AUt H)Hf:t'. I'tRSONl"J},l .. (·i)l '.\('II ,
l\IR fl)IU.··: l'.IJS('HARGE REVJE\\  RI),\ I.ii) J<;.; I 'Oi\IMA:-0 [llt. Ef  WJNt;,.1Rll H.OOR ANUl-'tE S Af6. l\11) 1117<>2-IUO?

Previous edition \v iii be usL"d

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RF:VIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL R ATIONALE	CASE NllMUF:R

FD-2004-00467	

GEN ERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for upgrade  of discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified hefOrc the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel,  •••
·	··. ··	via  video-kkconforence  with  Andrews  AFB  MD  and  St. A ugustine FL on  19 May 2005.

The fr,llowing additional exhibits were submitted al the heari ng: Exhibit 5: St. Leo College Transc1ipt
The al!achcd brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	t'pgrade   of  discharge,  change  of  reason   and  authority   for  discharge,   and  change  of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board  finds that neil her the evidence of record nor that provided by tJ1e applicant  substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justi fy a change of di8clrnrge.

ISSUES:

Issue J _   Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and based on iso!i1ted incidents.  TI1e records indicated the applicant received seven Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, three Records oflmli vidual Counseling, and six traffic tickets.  The ORB opined that through 1hee admi nistrative actions, the applicant had ample opport unities to change his negative behavior.  Tiic Board conc.luded the miscond uct was a significan t departure from conduct expected of all mili tary members. The characterizalion orthe discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant stated he was written up for infractions whi le TOY and wasn 't noti fied of his unti mely discharge.  The Board w as unable to resol ve the conflict wi th!he member's statement since the docllmcntalion contained in his records didn't support his testimony.  The presumption of regulari ty, particularly of the process and his interaction docsn 't support his contention.  The Board concluded lhe discharge was appropriate for lhe reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3.  The applicant cited his desire lo receive the G.L Bi ll benefits as justi fication for u pgrade_   The DRB noted that when  t he applicant  applied  for these benefits,  he sigrcd a statement (DD Form 2366, on 21 Feb
92) that he u nderstood he must  receive  an Honorable discharge lo receive future educational en ti t lemrnls, The Board  was sympathetic to the impad the loss of these  benelits was having on!he applicant,  but  this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 4.  Applicm1t contends that he should not be pena lized ind efini tel y for a mistake he made when young, he has grown and woul.d  li ke lo have this part of his l i fe cleaned so that he can continue l.o progress. The DRB recognized the appl icant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place_  However, Ihere is no evidence he was immat ure or d id not know ri ght from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was oldr;:r
than the vast majorit y of first-term members who properl y adhere to the Air Force's standards or conduct.
The DRB concluded that the cbracterizat ion of the app l icant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.	

CONCLUSIONS; The Discharge Review Board concludes  that the discharge was consistent with t11e proced ural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided foll administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable hasis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attach ment: Examiner's Brief