AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARJNG RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

Al C	tllllllIIlt•Jl

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITrING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANll.ATION OF COUNSEL

x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10	1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARJNG DATE

CASE NUMBER
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
2	
02-10-25

FD99..00424	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDmONAL  EXHIBITS St.rm.mTED AT  TIME  OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMA
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31!.D FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD99-00424	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, and by inference to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had at least two verbal counselings, three Letters of Counseling, four Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and an Unfavorable Information File. His misconduct included two instances of failure to pay just debts, writing a non­ sufficient fund check to a civilian creditor, failure to obey a lawful order, dress and appearance viol ations, failure to go, substandard duty performance, failure to maintain his on-base quarters in habitable condition, disrespect to his supervisor, and missing an official duty movement. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting probation and rehabilitation, characterizing his misconduct as minor in nature. Applicant now contends he was young and immature and associated with the wrong crowd, which contributed to his infractions. Applicant further provides an explanation for most of those infractions, although he does not dispute their occurrence. The Board noted that member was the same age as other airmen who adhere to the standards when his misconduct occurred, and he knew right from wrong. He was counseled repeatedly in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies. Although he was given numerous opportunities to improve his behavior, he failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. Contrary to his claim, he was mature enough to be responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

While the Board commends applicant on this desire his desire to return to military service, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on his reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 that the app1icant 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief