PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL Al<D OR ORGANl'.iA TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi.

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

INm:x NUMBER
A67.90	1	ORDER  APPOINTING  THE BOARD--=-:-:::--
2	APPLICATION !'Cfa REVIEW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETTER

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF PERSON NEL FILE

23 AUG 02

FD2002-0135	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT Tli\ffi OF
PERSONAL  .l\.PPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a 1>ersonal appearance, and the right to su bmit an application to the AFBCMR

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
R ANDOLPH  Al'B, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
:\JR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING. JRD f LOOR
..:\.": IDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0l	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of di scharge to Honorable.

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 lead ing 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:  The appl icant does not contest the discharge.  He states that his behavior was due to his age and maturity.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge	The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and a Vacation action on a suspended non-judicial punishment for negligently failing to maintain automobile insurance while on an Air Force installation, possessing alcoholi c beverages i n the dormitory while under the age of 21 and for possessi ng an unauthorized weapon in the dorm.  The applicant also
received three Letters of Repri mand for failure to go, and one Record of Individual Counseli ng for failure to go. The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequ it y in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The ORB recognized the appl icant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.
However, there is no evidence of record to ind icate he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was as old as the vast majority of first term members who properly adhere to the Air Force standards of conduct.  The Board concluded this issue was without merit.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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 appl icant was provided ful l administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the boa rd farther 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