"'

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEA lHNC. RECORD
'-...,,..., _ _ .,...      -
ITIAL)	GRAI

1Yl"E UEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

---·-

YES	No
x

ISSUES

A93.01

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC

INDEX NUMBER	A67.90

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x

A93.09

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

21 Jul 2005	FD-2004-00509

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:	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE     FD-2004-00509

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

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, change of reason and authority for 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: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that he didn't know what he was doing and that he was "young-minded" . He also states that his discharge is preventing him from obtaining a good job and from reenlisting in the military. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for unlawfully possessing beer while under the age of 21. He then received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for not showing up for his extra duty. In addition, he received four Letters of Reprimand and four Letters of Counseling for various acts of 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. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was two months shy of his 21st birthday 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.

It appears the applicant was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded in six months. The DRB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

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