PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW
NA.ME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN
x x x x x
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A94.05	A67. 10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
25 JUL 02

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0074

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICAT!O\"
4	BRIEF OF PERSON\"EL FILE COU\"SEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBlvLITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL   P..PPEARAN"CE

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

r....------mm•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l  •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

SAF/NIIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
R ANDOT.PH AFR  TX 7:R l t;;0-47d1

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1 -<::'l < 00ll f"ll f  A"Tr't nn L"r nrn.rr<  .,,RD ..,, ,-,.,,,,,

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE

FD02-0074

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge and to change the RE Code.

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

ISSUE: Applicant contends  discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in that he was not discharged for any serious violations, just minor disciplinary actions. 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 two Article 15's for failure to keep in effect a current automobile liability policy and forging a notice that an automobile liability policy was in effect for his vehicle; and wrongfully possessi ng, with intent to deceive, a DoD vehicle decal and wrongfully attaching to his vehicle a plate that was not assigned to that vehicle. In addition, the applicant also received two Letters of Reprimand for failure to pay his government credit card bill and for leaving his appointed place of duty without permission.  The DRB observed that by virtue of his length of service, the applicant was entitled to a discharge board. The record, however, indicates that he was not offered a discharge board. The DRB concluded that the failure to offer the applicant a discharge board was a harmless error in that given the totality of the circumstances this oversight did not amount to an impropriety or inequity. After reviewing the applicant's military record, all of the evidence of misconduct in the case, and the rest of the documentation in the file, the DRB found that had the applicant presented his case to a discharge board; the result would have been the same-separation with a general characterization. In other words, the applicant was not harmed and his rights not prejudiced by the inability to present his case to a discharge board. The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.