'.'JAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRAm:	Al<'SN/SSAN
c GlllllL

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORCANIZA TJON

MEMBERS SITTING

X   RECORD REVIEW

x x x x

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	W OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
9 JUL 02

CASENliMBER
FD2002-0053

3	LETTER 01' NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSON NEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL RXHIRlTS SUHMITTEO AT TIME OF PERSON Al APPEARANCE

HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appcaraucewith/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RA NDOLPH AHl. TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AJR FORCE DJSCJJARG r:: REVIEW BOARD
lH'\ f'()M M  Nn rm FF. WING 31<1' FLOOR
. \Jl)R EWS Afl3, MD 20762-7002

Al<'HQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition wil l 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 (DRB) 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 the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

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

Issue Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 18 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 2. The information provided by the applicant and contained in his records was carefully reviewed by the	The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The misconduct included dereliction of duty, yelling profanity in formation, failure to maintain military dress and appearance standards, failed dorm inspections,  failure to go on numerous occasions, lying to a non-commissioned officer, and damaging government property.  The opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant
was 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	administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the 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	

I