AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
.-----------------------.
'	'
'	'	GRADE

AMN	AFSN/SSAN
:-------------:
-------------·	
TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW	
COUNSEJ:.','
YES	No
x	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	

MEMBER SITTING		
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
.-----------------------------------
'''
h
''
''
''
''
_:
'
'
''' ''						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
						x	
ISSUES A92.21 A93.01 A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10			
		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

18 Apr 2006	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-004 78			
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
'	
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.	
:§'.G. _N..1.:'!. ?	!,l .!l _. L:....-:.>. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .I§I_G_N	?!1!?.i:.s"! J... _ _ _ _ .d._ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
''	''
''	'
.........,•••••••••••••••••••••••	INDORSEMENT	••	' D.j\.TE:' 4/25/2006	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
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-2005-00478	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 18 Apr 2006. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: Applicant's wife.

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: The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and he was immature.  He further contends that his post service conduct is reflective of his true character and ability to serve. The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions after 1 year and 8 months of active duty service.  The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge in order to receive GI Bill benefits.
The records indicated the applicant received a record of counseling, two Letters of Counseling, three Letters of Reprimand, and two Articles 15 for misconduct spanning a year that included repeatedly reporting late for duty, repeated failure to comply with unit post assignment procedures, absenting himself for his place of  duty without authority, failure to go, and dereliction of duty by failing to follow established security procedures.
The applicant testified that he felt he was immature at the time, was affected by his grandmother's illness and the fact that he was not especially interested in his Air Force specialty or base of assignment, but accepted full responsibility for his actions.  The applicant asserted he did not have a support system to help him but during testimony it became clear that he had a robust support system including a First Shirt who he characterized as "cool" and "practical'', a senior enlisted member in his unit that he stated he could confide in as well as several family members with prior military experience, however he failed to avail himself of this support system.
The recurring misconduct occurred over a span of over a year and the DRB concluded that the applicant had ample opportunity to correct the recurring misconduct that was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The escalating punishments and corrective actions the applicant received were consistent with other Air Force members committing similar minor disciplinary infractions.
The DRB was impressed with the applicant's post service accomplishments including work, education, family and Army reserve duty.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job and family, however, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.
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, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on September 19, 1995) 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.
Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant no younger than the vast maiority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.	

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 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