AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
ITIAL)

TYPE GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

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

03 Nov 2005

FD-2005-00189

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant 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 applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:	FROM:
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 edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00189	

GENERAL:	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 before the Discharge Review  Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 03 Nov 2005. The applicant's mother, Mrs:iltJUJ- also testified on the applicant's behalf.

The following additional exhibit was submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit #5: Applicant's Additional Contentions Exhibit #6: 5 Character reference letters

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	Upgrade  of discharge and 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and other people in his squadron committed worse misconduct but were retained. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand and three 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 constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant states that he was treated unfairly because he was often made to do jobs other people did not want to do. The board did not believe this constituted an impropriety or inequity in his discharge.

Issue 3. The Applicant believes that his discharge was improper because he did not receive a separation physical but was told to sign a paper saying he had one done. The records indicate the applicant did receive a separation physical. Certainly the applicant has not overcome the presumption of regularity. Two documents in the medical record indicate he received a separation physical.

Issue 4. 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 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 5. Applicant contends that he should not have been discharged because he was frequently switched to different shifts. The Board examined this claim and noted the applicant's medical records indicate he had difficulty adjusting to the different shifts, but also noted that much of his misconduct was not related to sleep	

 	
-

issues so much as they were the result of his immaturity and poor judgment.  While the DRB recognized the applicant was young when the discharge took place, there is no evidence he was so immature he did not know right from wrong.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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 thatthere exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief

.-