PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X RECORD REVIEW
='1  N"A'7M."E'"o""F"C""o;::-U: NSE""L'"°A' No"o"'.R..o=R::-G:::A-:Nl7.ATI"O'°N;;.,.--   --- ---t-AllDRESS A". ID OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSF.I.

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x x
-...=::-	x

ISSUES
A92.15, A92.37, A93.33

INlll';XNUMBER
A67.90

I ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLiCATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DA.TE
02-08-27

C:l\::>_E NlJMBER
FD2002-0111

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBtvfITIED AT Tllvffi OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

-TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPER ANCE HEARING

ARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a 1>ersonal ap1>earance with/without counsel.
.	-  .::::;:   . Sa

DD Form 149 submitted. The case will be fonvarded to the AFBCMR for further proccssing.

SAP/MIIJ
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH Al:B, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD 1535 COMMAND [)R, EE WING. 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002

AFHQ FORM 02077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASI<: NUMBER

FD2002-0111	

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. FINDTNGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justi..fy a change of discharge.
Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had two Articles 15. His misconduct included two incidents of being absent without leave (AWOL), the first time for 2 days and the second time for 4 days. For the first incident, state police had to be sent to member's family home to notify him to return to military custody. When he left again 10 months later, he obtained civilian employment and had no intention of returning to military custody. Member was recommended for an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge and exercised his right to an administrative board hearing which rendered him an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, pursuant to his request. Applicant contends now as he did at the time of his discharge  that  he  was mistreated and harassed by his co-workers in the Security Forces unit and that his chain of command took insufficient action to correct the problems, which led to his decisions to go AWOL. The record refelcetd member was a Security Forces Apprentice who was promoted and selected for the Elite Gate Guard after his first AWOL, indicating he was a good performer and was given the chance to succeed by his chain of command. The record also indicates member was of slight build and stature, and his complaints of physical harassment were reviewed in a commander-directed inquiry but found to be without merit. While in casual status working in another unit on base awaiting the discharge board, member performed well. While the Board finds there possibly were mitigating circumstances, the Board cannot condone member's very serious repeated misconduct. His conduct was a significant departure from the stand:!s dMinected of airmen. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

If the applicant can provff:le additional information about his discharge, and documented evidence to substantiate his issues, he should consider exercising his right to a personal appearance hearing, and be prepared to present the Bo·ard with evidence of an inequity or impropriety as well as any exemplary post­ service accomplishments and contributions to the community.

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	

--