AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
.------------------------1
''
------------------------ ·

GRADE

SRA

AFSN/SSAN

'	'

---------------

'

'	'
---------------'

TYPE UOTH

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

..;.;......·.·;.;;·;.,i NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

A00.47 AOl.09 A93. 11 A94.05

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPUCA TION 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 HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

15 Nov 2006	FD-2005-00386

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) on 15 November 2006 via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Travis AFB, California but failed to appear at the time and date requested or notify the board of his intent.

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.

.......................... , -.........................................J............/J....................."';	I

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-2005-00386	

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

The applicant was  scheduled  for  a personal  appearance  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  on 15 November 2006 via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Travis AFB, California but failed to appear at the time and date requested or notify the board of his intent.

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 on his DD Form 293 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.  The records indicated the applicant was financially irresponsible with his Government American Express Card, wrote bad checks to the McGuire Enlisted Club on many different occasions for amounts totaling almost $1100.00, signed
official records with intent to deceive, made false official statements, wrongfully appropriated approximately
$1100.00 from the US Treasury, submit a PCS travel claim which falsely claimed entitlement to over
$1000.00, and the applicant dishonorably failed to pay a just debt of approximately $3900.00.  For these offenses, the applicant received two Article 15s.  Additionally, earlier in his career (though not a basis for this discharge or for the characterization he received), he had received an Article 15 for hitting his wife in the face with his fist.  The DRB opined that through these nonjudicial and administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the pattern of misconduct and level of criminal activity for an NCO of his rank and experience was indeed a significant departure from the conduct expected from Airmen.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge characterization 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 and other accomplishments listed therein.  The DRB found the seriousness and complexity of the willful misconduct offset the total 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.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well since his separation from the Air Force.  He has served in the California Army National Guard (including currently being on full-time National Guard duty in an Active Guard/Reserve status since August 2005).  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

The DRB recognized the fact that the applicant had served over ten years total service before he was discharged, but concluded the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time in the Air Force.  The Board noted the applicant was given full rights to an administrative discharge board, and a review of those board proceedings reveals he was given every procedural requirement and was competently represented by an attorney before and throughout the board.	

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