AI R FORCE  DISCH A RG E REV IEW BOA RD H EARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE IN ITIA L)	G RA01':	AFSN/SSAN

'--------------------------- ·'
--------------------------:

AM N

:------- --- ---
--- ----- --- _ _:

TYPE  GEN

I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

l"""''""<-;:..o.u.,...•i._sE.. ..
YES	No

x

--l NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANII.ATION OF COUNSEL

--'

MEMBER  SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X*+ X*t X*+
X*+

ISSUES

A92.2J A94.05

INDEX NUMBEI!

A67.90

EXHlBlTSSUBMITTED    TOTHE   BOARD ORDER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHA RGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL PI LE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL FXI IIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X*+

TA PE R ECORDI NG OF PERSONAL A PPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Mar 2007	FD-2006-00187
., ue\-ISld'N\i\ll/llJll;ll!! l\l!i'AJJARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACflll1¥)iJ!!<,.fl\l!lil!!li)\l! $PMR()E REVIEW BOARD DEC!Sll\)ffii'\!!fllJll;Tl)!JNALE
'     ...   ...	·)<·····•·· ·· ····	.. . . , .....
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance wi th/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.

*  Reason and Authority
+ Reenlistment Code

.-- - - - - - _ .:, .,..,_ -	--------------------------•    1------------------------

TOc

FROMc

SAP/MRl:lR
550 C STREET WEST SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR t"ORCE rt;HONNEI. COUNCIL
AIR FORCE UISCllARCE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, El WINC,JRD FLOOR A NllllEWS AFB, MD 20162-1002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(Ef -V2)

Previous ed ition wi l l be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00187	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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, change ofreason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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 it was too harsh.  Applicant admits he made bad decisions due to immaturity.  He has expressed a desire for upgrade of his discharge to allow for reenlistment into the armed forces.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, four Letters of Reprimand and a Memorandum for Record for misconduct.  Applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to appointed place of duty and making a false official statement.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman, suspended forfeiture of pay, and restriction to base for 60 days.  He had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for dereliction of duty, making a false official statement,
financial irresponsibility, and missing formation.  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 DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and continuing with his education. 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 3.  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	
February 8, 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.

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