x

x

x

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SEll.YJCE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

x

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

!SSllES
A94.53,A92.37
'
f	INDEX NUMBER
A67.10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
				
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
BEARING DATE
3 JUN 03	CASE NUMBER
FD2002..0535	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Articles 15, a vacation of suspended punislunent, a Letter of Reprimand, and three Records of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included at least five instances of failure to go or missing appointments, two underage drinking incidents, and drunk driving. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting an honorable separation in order to receive his G.I. Bill education benefits. The Board noted member was given many opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them because his misconduct was disruptive to the unit. The board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade, and no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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 foregoing 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