TYPE
GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZATlON

MEMBERS SITTING

ADDRESS AN DOR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x x x

A94.53, A94.05;A92.37

!NPEX NUMBER
A67.90

·

1
2	A PPLICATION FOR R FVIFW OF DISCHARli E I.ETTER OF NOTI FICATION

3	•-  -•r -· --------<

HEARING  DATI:
02-06-27

CASl: NllMHER
FD2002-0049

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNFI. Fll .F COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SI JDMITTLD AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Boa rd, the rightto a persona l appca ra ncc with/without  counsel, and the rightto submit an application to the AFBCMR

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREE	EST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR HJRCE DISCHARG E REVI EW BOAR D 1535 COMMAND DR. FF W I Nli, 3•n FLOOR ANDREWS  AFB, MD 207·7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,.JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previou.,s. ed i tion will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER	

GENERAL: 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 available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had three Letters of Reprimand, two Articles 15, and a vacation of suspended punishment. His misconduct included four incidents of failure to go to his place of duty, a failed dormitory room inspection, and setting off fireworks inside the dormitory. At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel but failed to submit a statement in his own behalf. The Board noted that member was sent to correctional custody as part of the punishment for his first Article 15. While there, he got an unsatisfactory rating and had numerous Letters of Counseling for failing to follow the rules, failing to obey	orders, falling asleep on duty, and disrespect to a	Correctional custody was		opportunity for rehabilitation, yet he performed unsatisfactorily therein, and one of his correctional custody incidents thus resulted in his vacation of suspended punishment. And, subsequent to that, he had yet another incident of misconduct. The applicant’s continued misconduct was of a serious nature and was intolerable. Members who continue to commit such acts are held accountable for their behavior. There is no evidence of record that applicant didn’t know right from wrong or was immature. Furthermore, he was of the same age as the majority of first-term airmen who properly adhere to Air Force standards of conduct. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant now states he was told he would get an automatic upgrade after one year. While this a common issue, the Board noted it is one likely based on miscommunication. While a discharge may be upgraded after 6 months, an upgrade is by no means automatic. A discharge is only upgraded if the individual and the Board can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of the discharge. In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

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	concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant’sdischarge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner’sBrief