AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE  R EVIEW  BOA R D H EAR I NG  RECORD
NA ME Of SERVICF. M F M RkR II  ""T r.rn.,..,, ••·--· •. ··' ITIAL)	GRADE

TYPE  GEN	x	L	PERSONAL  APPEA RA NCE 	

AM N
I

..
RECOR D REVIEW

"•·'''	..,...,_.	_,	--	.·-
COUNJ;J;;	NAME OF COllNSF:I. AND OR ORGANIZATION	AllllRF:SS ANIJ OK ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YF:S	No
x

···-	"'·······	·-    VOTKOE'nf E BOAg}j
MEM.BE R SITTING	- -- .. .    --	. --··

      .,.. ....

-

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
··-·	--	'·-·--
x
---- ·	·--·
I	x
x
--·-	-	"
x
x
ISSUES	A93.0l	INDEX   Nl/MBl:K	A67.IO	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 'f<>THE BOA.RD
A93.08	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

--

A67.IO	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 	
"
-3·- · LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 		 	
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE flOARV ADDITIONAL EXH IRITS SU BM ITTED AT TIME or PLRSONAL  APPEARANCE
-	-·"-
TAPF RF.CORVINO or PERSONAL APPEARANCE
-  -·--	-	--····-
H EARING  DAH	CASE NUMBER

24 Jan 2006	FD-2005-00146
APPLICANT'S  ISSUE  AND  nm BOARO'S  DECISIONAL  RATIONAL  ARE  D/SCUSSF-D  ON THE ATTACHED  AIR  FORCE  DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD  DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	·_.
....

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

Ad vi se appl i cant of the decision and the ri ght to subm it an appl ication to the A FBCM R Names and votes wi ll be made ava i l able to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

I	-	_,..,	/

-···-·  ·-·-   - '"'      -·- -	.	-- . ,	s -
--

(")'

. ·----	 	

------ -	·---··'·- ·-	-···-·	-l

---  -··-	-··-·-····-	-···

I N DORSEMENT	DATE:   l/26/2006	'. :'··:::: :···1 <

TO:

FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY Of  THE AIR FORCE: PERSONNEL  COUNCii.
AIR FORCI: DISCHAKGf  REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	13 COMMAND  DR, EE  WING, JKIJ  Fl.OOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742
-·····		-	I

ANJIRF:WS AfB, Mii 20762-7002

   · -·		-	-

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition wi 11 be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00146	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), via videoconference from the Florida State Armory at St. Augusti ne, Florida, on 24 Jan 2006 with the DRB deliberation hel d at Andrews AFB, Maryland.

Add itional Exhibits and Documents:  None

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the appl icant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:   U pgrade 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.

ISSUES: Appl icant contends that he was young and immature at the time he committed the offenses that resulted  in his discharge. Additionally, he bel ieves that due to red uced manning and an expectation to mainta in the operations tem po withi n his unit, he d id not receive the proper training to perform his job. The applicant also cited his desire to receive G.J. Bi l l benefits as an additional justification  for upgrade.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits may have upon the applicant, but did not find this to be a matter of inequ ity or impropriety wh ich would warrant an upgrade. The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15 for recurrent unofficial use of his govern ment travel card (GTC), four Letters of Reprimand  (for reckless driving, disobeying a direct order to return to duty, fai lure in the performance of duties, failure to pay government travel card bill), one Letter of Counseling for fail ure to retu rn tools in timely manner and failure to account for all tools, and two Records of Individ ual Counseling for late arrivals to work. The Board considered that m inimal manning in the applicant's shop at the time of his fai lure to properly instal l a fuel control valve may have resulted from reduced manning, his level of train ing, or a lack of available  supervisory  personnel.    However, the Board  found  no  such mitigating  factors in the applicant's  repeated fa i l ure to account for tools util ized in the performance  of his daily duties. While acknowledging that the applicant's spouse may have contributed significantly to the misuse of his government travel card, the Board did not find this to be a m itigating factor in the applicant's subsequent continued inappropriate use of the card following the d iscovery of his wife's m isuse. Add itionally, although the applicant alleged that he only misused the card during a brief period of time, the record reflects, to the contrary,  evidence of misuse spanning several months (between on or about 8 Decem ber 2001 and on or about 22 November 2002). The ORB acknowledged the applicant's previous favorable enlisted performance report covering a period between 28 June 2000 and 18 March 2002. However, the majority of the Board bel ieved that the totality of the applicant's record did not outweigh the overarching negative aspects of his military service. The Board concluded that the applicant's collective infractions were a significant departure from cond uct expected of a l l m il itary members and that the characterization of his discharge was appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements of the discharge regulation, that it was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the appl icant received full administrative due process.

l n view of the foregoing findings the Board found  no  legal  or equitable  basis  for upgrade  of discharge, thus the appl icant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Exam iner's Brief