AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
,., nt•••nn11 ·"t..	-

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEi, AND OR ORGAN IL\TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGAI<IZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

!    INDEX NUMBER
.  A67. 10	ORDER APPOINTING TUE BOARD
APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING OAlf,
02-08-27

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0129

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBlvflTTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

REMA
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, The right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

	
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0129	
	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change hi s reenlist ment code.

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 and change ofreenl istment code are denied.	
	The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of d i scharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He was verbally counseled at least twice, had two Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and an Unfavorable Information File. His miscond uct included two instances of failure to go, three incidents of failure to obey a lawful order, a  dormitory violation, and disrespect to two superior noncommissioned officers. At the time of the discharge, after consulting counsel, member submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting an honorable discharge. He also noted his belief that his problems arose out of communications difficulties between he and his supervisor, and that he (member) was being discharged for inability to adapt to military life. Applicant now states his discharge was based on one isolated incident and that he should have challenged the other accusations against him. The Board noted that member was the same age as other airmen who adhere to the standards when his misconduct occurred, and he knew right from wrong. He was mature and responsibl e for his actions, and therefore was held accountabl e for them. 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