AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

Arnn

X

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  01' COUNSEL

x

x

ISSUES	AOl.00 A95.00	INDEX NUMER	A67.10		
				!   1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
				2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
				I 3	LETTER OF NOTil'ICA TJON	
				4	BRIEF 01' PERSONNEL FILE	
					COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
					ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
					TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
HEARING DATE

IO Ma r 2010	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00022			

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 applicant's request.	

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

SECRETARY OF THI:: AIR FORCE PERSONNl::J, COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE iu;vrnw 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	CAS£ NUMBER

FD-2009-00022	

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 and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: The applicant submitted no issues of inequity or impropriety. The record indicates the applicant received one Article 15, one vacation action (of Article 15), three Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and one Letter of Admonishment.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the CU. 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 September 14, 2005) that he understood he must receive an  Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. Based on a thorough review of applicanf s medical and personnel records, the Board did not find a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant  an upgrade. 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.

CONCLUSION: 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concl udes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief