ADl)IU:SS AND OR OltC,llNIZA	If or COUNSEL
\,

x x x x

HMRING  llATE
01 03 15

CASE NUMBER
FDOl-000-04
1	
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL. APPERANCE HEARING

REMARK!!
Case heard at Andrews AFB MD.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal  appearance hearing before the Discharge Review Board  in Washington,  D.C. on 15March 2001 but did not respond to formal notification  of the hearing and failed to appear without requesting a postponement.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MIBR
550CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150·4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WINO, 3111> FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

Af HQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was schedule for a personal appearance hearing before the Discharge Review Board in Washington, D.C. on 15 March 2001 but did not respond to formal notification of the hearing and failed to appear without requesting a postponement.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issues 1,	2 are similar in nature both dealing with alleged mistreatment by his supervisor and will be addressed jointly.  The applicant contents that he the reason for his discharge was because of mistreatment by his supervisor. The Board reviewed the record to find an inordinate amount of incidences of misconduct by the applicant. He received two Letters of Counseling, one for reporting late to work and another for failing to attend a scheduled appointment at the firing range. He had two Letters of Reprimand, one for failing to report for duty and needing a shave and another for being late to duty for a fourth time. In addition, the applicant received two Article 15s and a vacation for consuming alcohol while underage, failing to report to his place of duty, and improper clearing of his weapon. The record revealed no mistreatment by his supervision. The	opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The many offenses of the applicant, although minor in nature when analyzed individually, amounted to an overall serious problem that could not be tolerated. The Board concluded that the character and reason for discharge were appropriate due to his misconduct.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case upon which to base an upgrade of
discharge.

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 applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board	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