I

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

---·----·-·-- ·-------f1I
x---1- -RECORD REVIEW

AB

 	

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COl!NSEt

MEMBER SITTING

--·,.,,ti!
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

j

x
x x x
x
;/:···.t;.•

2 APPLICATION FOR REVCEW OF DISCHARGE

COUNSEi.    RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
1----------------1---···-------------------'--+-----···-··'"·---"''"''    '	-··-··-. ·" ... -· ... .... ......,,_  ,	---·--------·--

HEARING DATE

CASENlJMBER

Case heard in Washington, D.C.
Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and votes wil l be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SAFfMRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RANDOLPI! AFl:'l, TX 78150-4742

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW _B_OARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00587	

GENER AL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was scheduled fr)r a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland on 27 April 2010, but failed to appear or notify the board and therefore, he forfeited his right for a personal appearance.

The attached brief contai ns the available pertinent data on the applicant and lhe factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

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. The applicant was discharged IAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.1 : A Pattern of Misconduct, Discreditable Involvement with Military Authorities with an under honorable conditions (general) service characteri zation. The appl icant was convicted of the following offenses  at a Special  Court-Martial on 29 April 1995: Two specifications of larceny of items totaling about $3,600, under Article 121, UCMJ and one specification of willfully allowing Mr. S to use his military identification card (18 lJSC, Section 499), in violation of Articl e 134, UCMJ.  The appl icant was sentence to 30 days confinement, reduction to E-1 and 90 days  hard  labor  without  confinement.  The applicant also received two Records of Ind ividual Counseling, one Letter of Counseling and two Letters of Reprimand during his enlistment.

ISSlJ ES:

Issue I . A pplicant contends that he woul d l ike to start rece1vmg ed ucation benefits. The applicant's implication is his desire to receive the 0.1. Bill benefits as _justification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, dated 28 November 2003) that he understood he must receive an honorable di scharge 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. Furthennore, the G.I. bi ll is not afforded unless a member has served for at least 36 months.

Issue 2. Applicant contends and that because he was 17 years old at the time he came into the Air Force, he had "a lot of growing to do;" thus, making irresponsi ble choices that resulted in his discharge. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years old when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he d id not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was no different than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force standard s of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characteri zation of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the miscond uct.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the di scharge was consistent with the procedural and suhstantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was withi n the d iscretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the noarcl further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.
Attachment: Examiner's Brief