AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x
VOTE OF THE BOARD

ISSUES

A92.35

MEMBER SITTING

A67.30

INDEX NUMBER

HON

GEN	UOTIIC

EXHlBITSSUBMITTED

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OFNOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITfED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

23 Jun 2009	FD-2008-00192
APPLlc:'ANT'S ISSUE AND TI!E BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE A'ITACIIED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

The applicant requested a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and was scheduled for an appearance on 23 June 2009 at Andrews AFB, Maryland, but he did not keep the appointment or call to reschedule. Therefore, his request for upgrade was reviewed based upon the record and his submission.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

RSEMENT
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

DATE:  612Sflll®

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00192	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland on 23 Jun 2009, but failed to appear or notify the board.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #1: Applicant's Contentions

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:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based solely on one isolated incident. He contended that other than the one Article 15 for using his government credit card for unofficial purposes, he had "no other incid ents, no LORs, or Article 1	" The records indicate the applicant received an Article 15 and one Letter of Reprimand.

The evidence indicates the applicant made numerous unauthorized charges on his government credit prior to beginning his TDY.  The applicant submitted additional evidence to substantiate the inequity of his discharge, which showed that he claimed reimbursement for gas in the amounts of $455, $629, $291 and
$310 for 30-day periods of time--amounts that are in excess of what he would have been authorized for official travel.  In addition, one of the rental car receipts shows that the applicant not only upgraded his rental car, charging the government $380, but put 6,747 miles on the rental car between 13 November 2005 and 20 December 2005.

In addition, the applicant received an LOR for test driving a Honda, informing the sales person that he would return the car at 1730 that evening. He failed to return the car until 2 days later with the sticker removed and 268 additional miles on the odometer.

The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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