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

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

A I C

.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
'
'
'

TYPE  UOTH

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

.   NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

OEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

x

x

ISSUES

AOt.00 A95.00

INDEX NUMBER

A94.07

x
x x

1	OR DER APPOI NTI NG Tl IE BOAR D
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITI   NAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HF

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Sep 2006	FD-2006-00034

Case heard in Washi ngton, 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 available to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRt:TARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR A.NDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition wil I be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00034	

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 he served two years and six months of his four year enlistment.  It has been seven years since his discharge and he deserves an upgrade.  The records indicated the applicant's commander preferred a charge against him for larceny.  The applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court martial which was approved by his chain of command.  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 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 July 10, 1996) 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 equitabl e basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief