AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE IN ITIA L)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
i------------------------- .	---------------.

'	'.

AMN	'

'

'	·- - - - - - - - - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

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

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
lNSEL· .	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

'.dl.1......

!  ,>, 'f	VOTE OF THE BOAlttij:?	' /'
MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
''
''	x
-:'
'

''

'	x
-:
'''	x
---':
'''	x
---':
'':	---	x
ISSUS	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67. 10	tSZ\ l!lnTS SUBMITTED TO	l lJARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVI EW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COU NSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOA RD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

111\ARING DA TE	CASE NUMBER

24 May 2007	FD-2007-00017
llll'Al'fr$ l••¥7'. r1"'.!." l.luAtW'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AIUi DlsCus!lD oN II ATTACl!llO'.'  q !S tll! IUiVll!W BOARO DECISIONAL IUTIONA'i'f>

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 will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''	''
''	''
'	'
'' -------------------------------- - ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ''
. t:i,'	'	.  1Rnol\SEMENr	ATE: s'12912001
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OP THI:: AIK t·ORCF. ff RSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCIIARGE REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RU t"LOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB,  TX  78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MU 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-2007-00017	

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 discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He contends that his discharge was expedited because the Air Force was going through Force Shaping.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation, four Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  The applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go to his 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 a reprimand.  The Vacation action was for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and failure to pay
a debt to the Military Star Program.  For this misconduct, he was punished with a forfeiture of pay for two months.  The applicant had additional misconduct and was administratively disciplined for being late for duty, failure to go, substandard training progression, and violation of the Dress and Appearance Standards. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's 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 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