PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIt.ATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A94.53, A93.37, A67.0l	A67.10
1	
ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OFNOTIFICATlON

HEARINGDATE
02--08-20

BER
FD2002..0117

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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.

SAF/MIBR
SSO C STREET	T, SUITE 40
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31ID FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0117	

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. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had three Letters of Counseling, two Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and an Unfavorable Information File. Member also had a referral "2" Enlisted Performance Report that cited his inability to adjust to military life, negative outlook, and behavior problems. His  misconduct included two instances of failure to go, multiple incidents of dereliction of duty, a quarters violation, and failure to obey a lawful order.  These incidents of misconduct occurred during the period June 1994 to July 1995. Member was also sent to the Airman Career Awareness Program due to his disciplinary problems. At the time of the discharge, after consulting counsel, member submitted a statement in his own behalf explaining his interpretation of what happened regarding each incident and requesting an honorable discharge so he could use his Montgomery G.L Bill education benefits. He also submitted four character statements. Applicant brings no issues to this Board now. The Board noted that member was age 22 to 24 when his misconduct occurred, the same age as other airmen who adhere to the standards, and he knew right from wrong. He was mature and responsible for his actions, was held accountable for those. He was counseled repeatedly and given numerous opportunities to improve his behavior but failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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