AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORCANlZATlON OFCOUEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A94.0S

A67.10

1  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LEITER OFNOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONN EL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARAN CE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATI:	CASE NUMBER

10 Jan 2014	FD-2013-00615

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.

TO:

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

SECRETARY OFIBE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNClL AIR FORCE DISOiARCE REVIEW OOARD
lSJS COMJllANO DR. EE WING,JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-1001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00615	

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.

ISSUE:    applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and believes he has been punished long enough.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, one Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  His misconduct included failed to report to guard mount on time (5x), and slept on duty (2x).   The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. 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.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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 June 14, 2007) that he understood he must 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.

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