AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	-GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZA TION Oft COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x
x

ISSUES
A94.0S

INDEX  NUMBER
A67.JO

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
20 JUN 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002..0086

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

RE
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 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

FD02-0086	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable 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 of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant states his discharge was too harsh because it was based on one Letter of Reprimand. The record indicates the applicant received two Letters of Reprimand for failure to pay just debts, and violation of AFR 35-10 standards, dereliction of duty, and disrespect toward two noncommissioned officers. In addition, he received four Records of Individual Counseling and a Memorandum for Record for failure to go (three times), delinquent debt, and dereliction of duty. It is obvious that there is more than just one Letter of Reprimand. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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