AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AMN
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x
x x x x

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARlNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMllER

08 Apr 2010

FD-2009-00107

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 applicant's request.

SAP/MR13R
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE l'ERSONN!i;J. COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRIJ FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 2076:MOOI

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EFV2)	Previous

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

-
FD-2009-00107	

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: Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. Rather, the applicant cites 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 signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on 18 September 2001 ) that he understood he must complete 36 months of active duty service and 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. The DRB opined that the applicant's record of service warranted his discharge and its characterization as under honorable (general) conditions. The record indicates the applicant received one Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment and a Record of Individ ual Counseling. His misconduct included failure to go (3x), disobeying orders (2x), underage drinking (for which he received a civilian conviction), and striking a fellow Airman in the face with a baseball bat. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior. It found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Further, the DRB noted that the applicant did not complete 36 months of active duty service; even if it voted to upgrade his discharge to honorable, the applicant would remain ineligible to receive these benefits.

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 concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief