A I R  FORC E  DISCHARG E REV IEW  BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AFSNISSAN
Ellbtli'!f'
X RECORD REVIEW

NAME Oi' COUNSEL ANJl OR ORGAJlllZA ION	ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANl:t.AHON Of COUNSEi.

x x x
x
x

HEARING OATE
2 JUL 02

CASE NHMBER
FD2002-0048

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATI ON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHA ROE
3	LFTTFR OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDlTIONi\L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIMil OF_
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea rance with/without  counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCM R

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WFST. SUITL 40
RANDOLPH AFR TX 78150 4742

SLCRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR  FORCE lllSCllARGE REVILW BOARD l535COMMAND DR. FE WIN(!, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFl3, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, ,IA N 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

-	-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER	
IGENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board	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 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.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge.  He states that he was just 19 years old when he joined the Air Force and didn’t know how to control himself. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The records indicated the  applicant received  an Article  15 for		striking another airman and for being disorderly. He also received a Vacation action on a suspended bust for	grabbing another airman. Also, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling for failing a dormitory inspection and a Memorandum For Record due to a lack of initiative concerning his up-grade training. The opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. Also, the DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older then the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force’s standards of conduct. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and that the characterization of the	discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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	administrative due process

In view of the foregoing findings the board	concludesthat there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant’sdischarge should not be changed.

Attachment: