AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
 	I			AlC		I	I 	
TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
5puNS&Lp i'i)!*¥ NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
1«:uf&>>Ail\fJ'Vt ·O· TE OF TH'E,.B.OARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

-	x
x

-

x
x
ISSUES	A95.00	INDEX NUMBER	A67. 10	I<'	EXHIBITS SUJ;lill!&D TO THE BOARD
AOl.00	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
ADDITIUNAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

02 Nov 2006	FD-2006-00084
APPLIC1NT'..1.s. . .l?.!f!E BoAAn·s.. 1;:'& AJ;.i Dg	l ri1f:·,t i .. ·	...r. a lsaJgjYIBW BOAIW l>J>CISloNAL	Io.'	..) .
Case heard in Washington, O.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 applicant at the applicant's request.

SIGNATUR• · RECORDER	-	,r  //	SIGNATURE OF BOARD.l'RESIDEN7
. ·:·>'.	.	INDORSEMENT	DATE: l l/111006	I
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCll.
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	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-2006-00084	

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. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's for misconduct.  The first was for being derelict in his duties by failing to guard an F-1 17A, Stealth Fighter.  He received a suspended  reduction to Airman, forfeiture of pay and 21 days of extra duty.  The second Article 15 was for negligent!y failing to secure locks on a weapon rack and for failure to conduct a proper inventory upon assuming post as an armorer.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman First Class and a reprimand.  The applicant had further misconduct and received three Letters of Reprimand and a Letter of Counseling for being late for duty.  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 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
October 25, 1999) 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.

Issue 3.  The applicant stated he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded in six months. While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

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