-      --	-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA1 "UV .. TH1'.T£" T>T',., .....

lilTIAL)

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL At'l'EAKAl CE

x	RECORD REVIEW

-	"•' .NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

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

x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.01

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING 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	CASE NUMBER

10 Aug 2005	FD-2004-00496

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.

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE Aill FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
Aill FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FWOR ANDREWS AFB, 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-2004-00496	
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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and six Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.   The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.   The Board 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. 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 March
24, 1997) 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 3. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 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.

If he can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If he should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual
evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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