I	- - - -- - -- -- - --- -- -- ·-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
-- ----- - ----- - "'IITIAL)	GRADE	I

AMN
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSJ\L	.  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGA NIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
y	VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DEN Y
I
x
x x

·

x

···
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.90

t'
.
l	'	x
--·	,j	. '
EXHIBITS SUBMlTTEDTO THE BOARD

A93.09	1	ORDER APPOfNTfNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRI EF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE  BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

29 Dec 2005	FD-2005-00214
Al'l'LICAlff:.$ I$SuEAND TliE BOARD'S DEPISIQ'llll\1 RATIO!olAL.Aiffi DlSCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR Ft)l!,CE DISCHAAGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
.... ..·	..··. . ·.
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SIGNATURE o;;;;ri!}'nnn--	I c1r1'tJ Am ni< 1u1& on PPli''l.lnJ;>AT

I TO:

--
 		'··	INil()RSEMENT '	.... ·•·.	UATE:   12/29/2005	 	
FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742	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 NU\IBER

FD-2005-00214	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but decl ined to exercise th is 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  inequ ity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records ind icated the applicant received two Article l Ss and a Vacation action under the UCMJ for maki ng a false official statement, writing bad checks, and wrongfu lly leaving the scene of an accident.  In add ition, he received two Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counsel ing and one Memorandum for Record for various acts of misconduct to include financial irresponsi bil ity, derel iction of duty, being late for duty and falsifying an official government document.  The DRB opined that through these admin istrative 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 states that his
discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation  and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willfu l misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.   The appl icant also submitted his post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing wel l and has a good job.  However, no ineq uity or impropriety in h is discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the m isconduct of the appl icant appropriately characterized his term of service.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bi ll benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366) 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.  Finally, the applicant stated that he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded after 6 months. The DRB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication.  While a d ischarge 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 th is 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 with in the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided fu ll administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concl udes 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