AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

.'--------------------- .'
'	'
--------------------!

AMN

:·----- -----·:
:	:
"------------

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

l'OI    NF.I.	'       NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

·,.·
. ....

MEMBER SITTING
·'-----------------------------------­

'

'' '
r--:
'
''
>--':
'
---:
''
"------------------------------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOT!FICA TION
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

24 Aug 2006	FD-2005-00457
,..	·w    ·1 u1:: ANJ.J ,, ,,,, ,,,,,,	"' DECJSIONAP !tATl!llNAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R£VIEW. BQ{l!\D DECISiONAL RAT!ONApE .· .,.·.
i .	i >	.................	. ..............	} <    ••	.......

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

......•.......... .....
.·

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

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

I	11
I_G_N_A]}l!!.!1.Q.F.1!1£<::Qi!f21£fl •_. _ ••-4"l - • _./.l.. _ ••••_ _ ••_ •••• _...--;: _ ._ ••_ ._ •• l 1p_pt..J,!J!!_OJ.l!.Ql!f2 i!VJ'!.>!H!:K ••_. _ ••_. _ ••_ ••

'

'
'
'

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-2005-00457	

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 discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is 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 he was a victim of downsizing and it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, three Letters of Reprimand (LOR's), two Records oflndividual Counseling and twelve squadron letters/Memorandums  for Record for misconduct.  Applicant received an Article 15 for failing to obey a lawful order to assist an officer.  He was punished with a suspended reduction in grade to airman, forfeiture of pay and 30 days of extra duty.  The records also indicated a Vacation action on 17 Apr 92.  However, the DRB did not consider this infraction since it occurred after the applicant had already been notified of pending discharge action by his commander. The three LOR's were as a result of applicant having dishonored checks.  The remaining disciplinary infractions were for sleeping on duty; leaving duty place without authority; failure to pay Open Mess dues
on time; dishonored checks; disarming smoke alarm in dorm room; and failure to follow instructions.  The DRB opined that through these administrative 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.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited his desire to rec.eive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  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