X PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADO RESS A"NO OR ORGANIZAHON OF COUNSEL

				X+	
X*+					
X*+					
				X+	

HEARING DATlt
02-10-03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0035

2	APPLICATION FOR REVlEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFlCA TION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDIT!ONAI.  cXH!fl!TS SUBMITTED AT  TIME Or' PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

* Change Reason and Authority to Secretarial Authority.
+ Change Reenlistment  Code

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise ap1>licant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

SAF/Mll3R
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0·2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi, COUNC[L
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD J 535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3W FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002·0035	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeal s for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD on October 3, 2002.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibits 6, 7, 8:  Character Reference Letters
Exhibit 9:  CDC End of Course Certificate Exhibit  10:  NCO Prep Course DG Certificate Exhibit  11: Letter of Appreciation
Exhibit  12:  American River College Associate's Degree Exhibit  13:  Governor's State University Bachelor's Degree Exhibit  14: Unofficial Listing of College Courses and Grades

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

FIN DINGS:  The Board grants partial relief.  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
Change of reenlist ment code is granted.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify an upgrade of discharge.  However, based on applicant's testimony, the Board finds merit to changing applicant's reenlistment code.

Issues.  Appl icant received an under honorable conditions (General) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  Accordi ng to his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), he had at least two Letters of Reprimand, had been verbally counseled, was removed from his primary duties twice, and was placed on the Control Roster.  One of those EPRs was rated an overall "2" referral.  Member's misconduct apparently included insubordination, failure to follow orders, GOV abuse, and conduct unbecoming a	
noncommissioned officer.  At the time of the discharge, member was entitled to an administrative discharge board based on his length of service and recalls being notified of such and waiving it, and agreeing to
accept a general discharge because he was ready to be separated from the Air Force.  Applicant now contends the discharge was too harsh and noted his otherwise satisfactory service, prior period of honorable service, and good post-service conduct.  Since the discharge documents are not available, and lacking evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board relied on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper.  Neither the record review nor applicant's testimony convinced the Board there were mitigating or extenuating circumstances, nor any impropriety or inequity to override said presumption of regularity.	Neither the record or applicant's testimony offered a basis to substantiate an upgrade.

The Board did however feel that based on applicant's otherwise satisfactory military service during his previous enlistment, and before his final year of service, and in view of his post-service accomplishments, he could once again be a potential asset to a military organization, and therefore agreed to change his reenlist ment code to allow him reentry at this time.

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 further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade/change of reason for discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief