AIR  FORCI:: DISCH A RGR  REVIEW  BOA RD HF.ARING  RECORO

X  PERSONAL APPEARA NCE

._

1 ·, l '·j	.v

0CN< <.. t

- NA'°M'""E,..O,°"FC(>QtfNSiil.A!\O IHt URl; NIZAl lON

VOTE  or.miliOAkD
- H(lt>.	GEN	1JOT1It	0'1t114R	OEf\."Y
..

....	-·

!    x	!

;

!	I x
x

;

;	-··	·-	;	i  x
i	i
x

A67.I O

 	• EXHIBTI>  SUDMTTT• TOTltE.lOA•I> 	

·- -

'T!ORDER APPOINTING Tl IE AOAR ll
2	APPLICA Tl<)N H)l{"ii:Evi w OF DISCllARGE
3	LeTri:R OF NOTIFICATION

..,  	

UEAIUG D.\TF." -
i    l0 0CT 02

CASF: N11f.l.rJf:R
Hl2002-0077

4	BRIEr OF PERSONNEi . i'll .l-.	····---·
COUNSH.'S hLloAs8";ro THE BOARD

!		i 	
:   ADDlT!Oi..JAi. F:>:'.I !I Iii,is' g(iiJ:MITf bl.) /\T Tl'.l«lE OF
l'ER ONt\C l\PPEARJ\Nt'E
..      ..	......... _ _ _	.._	I	I  TAPE RF.c6ifr)'1NG 15i" r1; :'.0'.    --PPERANCE HEARING	1
f-A,PPLlC A",T''S !SStrF Ar-.1) i'Ht: ijQAfUYS DECtSJON1\L 11.ATIOl"L\L ARI:- l>!'.'):('l.J.'.151:.ll ON Tl'il::: ATTACf lEiD AIR !"ORC.P l)fS(:HARVi:: JWVLCW BOARD DECISIONAL RAT!0NAl.F'.

IU.VIARK';
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision ofthe Board.

· --

r,..

_j

··

IJATll: 11 OCT 02

-,Al'IM I HI!	... .	···----------,.!;-"0'"	SECRETARY or Tl m A IR FOl\Cl-. PCR  ONNEL COUNCIL
550 C TR l+T W.. EST, SUITE! 40	All\ l'ORCE DISCllARGE REVIEW HOA RD
RANDOLPll Af-R TX 78150-4742	l l:l5 COMMAND DR, Ee WING, J'° FLOOR
ANDREWS AH!, MD 20762-7002

.. AFHQ FORM 0-2077, ,JAN 00	-(E F -\_,,2)  ---	Previous ed ition will be

AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD  DF,CJSIONAL  RATION AL.I;;	

FD02-0077	

GEN ERAL:  'I11c applicant appeals for a change of the service characterization  from General to Honorable.
,..,1;  ,.f .
The applicant appeared and testi fied before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFll, MD on October  I 0, 2002.

The following additional exhibits were suhmittcd at the hearing:  Exhibit 5: Applicant's isue;;; Exhihit 6: Observation Report, 25 Oct 01; Exhibit 7: Observation Report, R Nov 0 l ; Exhi bit 8: Observation Report, 5 Dec 01 ; Exhi bi t 9: Observation Report 12 fl.far 02; Exhibit 10: Letter from Assistant Principle, 3 May 02; Exhibit 11: Summer School Eval uat ion, 8 Aug 02; Exhibit 12: Letter from Principle,	, 23 May 02; Exhibit lJ : Letter from Principle.	1 7 Jun 02; Exhibit 14: Letter from Principle,
, 26 Jun 02

The attached brief contains the a.railablc pertinent dat<'! on the applicant and Uw factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: The request was denied.

ISSUE:  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because he was not given proper guidance reg<ird ing the rules and standards; the command did not provide proper counseling and rehabilitation opportunities; the miscond uct W<Ls not so serious that it out weighed his honorable service; and that with only seven months left in his enlistment, the discharge was un fair in light of the minor nature of his miscond uct.  The records indicated the applicant received a General discharge for misconduct -minor disciplinary infractions.  He received one Article l 5 for fail ure lo obey a lawful order and a vacation action for failure to obey a lawful general regulation.  Ile also received two kttern of repri mand for failure to go, failure to be present for recall, and failur to obey an order.  He also received two letters of counseli ng for
failure to go and failure to be present for recalls.  He had a verbal cmmscling for a traffic infraction.  A rter a thorough and complete consideration of the information   ubmilled by the applicant, the applicant 's personal testimony, and information contained in the record. the Board concluded there was no indication of any inequity or impropn\!ly associated with his discharge.  The facts indicated clearly that the applicant was given ample ad appropriate opportuni ty lo change his behavior and conform to the rules and requirements
of Air Force service in Panama during that time of high political tension.  There was also insunlcient mitigation and extenuation to substantiate a change in the character of the discharge.

CONCLLSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the disharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided foll administrati ve due process.

The Board forther concludes that the given the nature of the si Luation. the overalfquality of applican l's service is accurately reflected by a General discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief