x
x

PERSONAL.APPEARANCE	
·X RECORD REVIEW	.	

-

'
. - .	x

llE.UllNG DAi'!
02 05 29

ii.c.

ltDLUU
Case heard at Wasiiingion,

l	ORDER
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHAR.OE

I;I

-i	LETTER OFNOTIPICA TION
BRJSF OF P&P.&Ql!liiJ.. FILB . - • •:.. . -.. ••
I ·1 CQUNf!lli,l,'  RlibiMiTGBOAR9-	-I
-	ITS IJU'DMffTlig AT TIME et!'
PERSONAL APPEAJtANCE

Adviseapplicantof the decisionof the Board, the rightto a pcrsonalappearance wltb/wlthout counsel, and the rightto submit an application to the AFBCMR

-:•

SAF/MmR
550C STREET'iil:EST, SUITE 40
---RANDOLPH AF-B, TX- 71150-4742 	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00

.';.. ..·.·• •.

\I
(EF-Vl)

AIR FORCE Il!SCHARGEREVIEW OOARD
1535COMMA}.D DR, EE WMCi, 3111> FLOOR
.4®	.tWlJW-
Previousedition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASENl:MBER

FD20o2 ooI 8	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but declined to
p=ci"se:tl!ini&l•' •	--·	I£ .	
-	-
:file attached brief	tmns the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors bdio the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade is denied.

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

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

Issue. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The information provided by the applicant and contained i n his records was carefully reviewed by the ORB . The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, four Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct. The misconduct included failure to go and failure to obey a lawruhirder. The bR:B opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. 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.

Inview of the foregoi ng 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

-	- -··	-	-
..	

-51

-- -