AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INJTJAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

COUNSEL

x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
•	
•n m1
X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS  SIITING

HON	GEN

VOTE OF THE BOARD
vomc

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

HEARING DATE
18 JUN 02

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0014

Ell
l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARf ·
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TJON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDIDONALEXHIBITS SUBMITTEDAT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDINGOFPERSONALAPPERANCEHEARING
CHAR.Oli'.JU!>1EW BO

REMARKS
Case heard at 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.

17•	-

- - --

L	-	- -

		
TO:
SAF/MIBR
550C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78 150-4742		SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CO AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31Ul FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002	

UNCIL

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EJ;:-V2)

Previous edition will be used.

 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER	

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

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

The applicant's issue is listed in the attached brief.

Issue. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and also contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The information provided by the applicant and contained in his records was carefully reviewed by the DRB. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct. The misconduct included failure to go to appointed place of duty and sleeping on duty. The DRB opined that through these administrativeactions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right wrong. The Board concluded the misconduct outweighed the otherwise satisfactory performance of this member. 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 findingsthe board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief