BFARJ.Nci>Am
010223

3	l.EITER OFNOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

.  COUNSEVSRELWETOfHE BOAR
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SVBMITTEDAT TIMEOF--­ PERSONAL APPEARANCE

_   _    Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

,_

SAF/MJBR 5C"S'T"IR'_t,:.E.,.E..,'l.,',WllY?F.ST,  SUITE.th
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4741

SECRETARY OF1HEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCll..
AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31t11 FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762 7002

AF1IQ FORM 0-20771 JAN 00	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER
FD-01-00014	

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 to exercise this right.

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 DRB finds that the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough	of the record, the Board was able to identify		The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct. The misconduct included being found sleeping on post as a sentinel	on duty, and on two separate occasions failing to maintain a properly clean and pressed uniform. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunitiesto change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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	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	

,