AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

-

AFSN/SSAN

.-----------------------
'	'
----------------------- ·

AIC

.:..-.--..-.--..-.--..-.--..i·

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD R EV IEW

1-c_o"u'"TN_SE_L_""i NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl:lATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE GF THE BOARD

MEMBER  SITTING	HON
-----------------------------------   ''
''

'

GEN	UOTHC	arHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

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

ISSUES

A92.21 A92.0l A94.05 A92.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

l	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 EXH IBITS SU R M ITTED AT TI M E Or PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DAT!:	CASE NUMllER

28 Jul 2006	FD-2005-00437
' APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S PECISlONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FOR.CB DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Washington,  O,C,

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/w ithout counsel, and the ri ght to submit an application to the A FBCMR

Names and votes wi l l  be made avai l able to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

:

:_SJviii..1'1&.k"lkro;mfiQF,;l,! _ - • 7..'2.......22.- - - - ...4"2. - - - - - - • 2 - - - - - - _ _l_SJ!ft<tJUJ\E Q6'JIS!Af!Q ll!l-EHQ.1';.l':!t • .Z.-- - - - :.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

':

TO:

':
-----------------------t::>"--	c;R.sii\i.E"N-i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ii;.;:E:;113ii:io6

FROM:

·· ···--·-· ------	----· -·····--·----·····--··	--	--------	1

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

SECRETARY OF Tlll; AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COllNCIL
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-2005-00437	

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

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 di scharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the appl icant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue I .  Applicant contends discharge was ineq uitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand and Unfavorable Information File for conspiracy to defraud the United States Government through the falsification of federal income tax returns.  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.

Issue 2.  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 willful 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.

Issue 3.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  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.

Issue 4.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.J. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement 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.

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