-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

NAL APPEARANCE
.l	!J:l$]i\L	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	NO
x

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

------\

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION O.' COUNSf.1,

'
''
'' '
--:'
'

-'

'
',
'
''
''

I	..
MEMBERS  SITTING	HON
x

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x

'-----------------------------------------------

ISSUES
A94.05

INDEX NUMBER
A67. 10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
2 MAY 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0539

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING APPLICANT'S I.ssUE ANDTHEBOl\RI)'rnl! 111s101:11l:J\l;ATl,ONAL ARE DlSC\JSSED 01'!THE ATTACHED AIRFOii.CE· DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
··· •	, '	• . ..	·....
REMARKS
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.

.'!!''1_ 1.1: !.  !'lW:'.1!1? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L _s	!'!>;-\_!  Ip_E_1.: - - - - - - - - - - _l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
''
'
''
'	v- ------------- ----------------------

·.·

·.   '

.   ,	l	DATE: 2 MAY 03

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0539	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The app,licant 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 evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends that his discharge was unfair and harsh. He also states that since he has been out of the Air Force, he has started a family and is currently in the Army National Guard and that he would like to receive his GI Bill benefits. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to prevent a Korean female from living in his dormitory room and for willfully failing to obtain a visitors pass for her. He also received four Letters of Reprimand for financial irresponsibility, failing to register a guest on base and failure to obey a written order concerning the Base escort policy. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well with his family and his service in the Army National Guard.  The applicant cited his desire to receive the
G.I. Bill benefits. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that would warrant an upgrade. If he can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If he should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge. The Board further concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.

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 of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief