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 COllNSF.t

x

x	
					
				x	
				x	
				x	
				x	

ISSUES

A93.ll A93.01 AOI.00 A92.41

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

1 ORDER Ai'POINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION fOR REVIEW OP DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OP NOTIPICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMl1TED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEAR ING

HEARING llATl:	CASE NUMBER

29 Jun 2010	FD-2009-00149

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.

 	

TOo

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMANIJ  llR, EE WING, JRO FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCIIARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00149	
GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals  for upgrade  of discharge to honorable,  and to change the reason  and authority for the discharge, as well as the reenlistment code.

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 request to change the reason and authority for discharge and the reenlistment code also are 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.

ISS U ES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitel y for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took place.  .However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.
The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct

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 signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on February 17, 2006) that he understood he must serve a minimum of 36 months on active duty and receive  an Honorable discharge to receive future educational  entitlements. Applicant fulfilled  neither of those preconditions. 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.

Issue 3.  Applicant submitted no other substantive issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge.  The applicant does submit that he believes he deserves a second chance despite his discrepancies so that he may serve his country in the Unites States Air Force or Border Patrol.  He adds his discharge is also limiting his employment opportunities.  The record indicates the applicant received one Letter of Counseling (LOC), one Article 15, one Vacation Action, and one Letter of Reprimand during his two years and seven months on active duty.  His misconduct included dereliction in the perfonnance of his duty,
larceny of military property (x2), and driving under the influence of alcohol.  The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to chm1ge his behavior.  They 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.

CONCL USION: 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 equitabl e basis for upgrade of discharge and detennines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment:  Examiner's Brief