AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NA Mt; OF SERVICE M•;MBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

:

--------------------------------
:

AMN

1• • • • • • • • •••••••I
'	'
'	'

----------------------------

APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW --------------

TYPE  GEN

PERSONAL

NAME OF COUNSEL AN() OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x x x x
x

----------------------------------
F;x NLIMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMfITEDTO THE BOARD

ISSUES

A94.05

IN()

A67.90

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4		BRIEF Of PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDI 'JO  AL EXHIBITS S  AMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NLIMBER

20 Feb 2007

FD-2006-00284

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 wi l l be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    ·...-	1

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 781 50A742

FROM:

SECRF;TARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR t"ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
15J5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR Al'HlREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

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

CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00284

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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.  Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He contends his military career was fine unti l he was separated from his wife and comments made by his 1st Shirt made him act out and ruined his career with the investigation of homosexuality.  The Board considered the applicant's contentions and noted that he provided a written statement to his commander requesting to be discharged because he was bisexual.  The records also indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, a Letter of Counseling and two Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.  He received an Article 15 for misuse of his Government Travel Card (GTC), failing to provide financial support to his spouse while he was receiving Basic Assistant (sic) for Housing and failure to pay his GTC.  He was punished with a reduction in grade to Airman, suspended forfeiture of pay, and restriction to Dover AFB for 60 days.  The Vacation action was for failure to pay his GTC.  He forfeited $645.00 pay for two months.
The ORB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the miscond uct 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.l. 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 16, 2001) 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