TYi'
GEN	PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME 01"COIJNSEL AND OR ORCANll.ATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
i\l>DR£SS AND OR ORGANll.ATION OF COUNSEL

x
x
x
x
x

ISSUES
A93.01, A93.0J, A93.09

ttEARING DATE
02-08-28

INDEXN1JMBER
A67.10

CASE NUMBER
- FD2002-0l44

1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETI'ER OF NOTIFICA1-JON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

TAPE RECORDfNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
ON THEAl'l'AcHED AJA. FORCEO!St:'  -----oE JU:VIEW OOAiiliDECIS!ONAJ.. MTIONALE	-·-- -i
i

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     EST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781.50-4742

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
A!R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD I .535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3lU.> FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.
-·-···'-='-'--•

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0l44	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment 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, change of  reason and authority for the discharge, and change of reenlistment 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 discharge.

Issues. Applicant was  discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had a Record of Individual Counseling, four Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15. His misconduct included two instances of failure to remain in his dormitory room during specified hours, failure to obey a lawful order, disrespect to a civilian instructor and superior noncommissioned officer, a military uniform violation, smoking violation, and underage drinking. At the time of the discharge, member waived his rights to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf Applicant now states his misconduct was the result  of immaturity, stress, and inabi lity to adapt to his career field. 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 responsible for his actions and therefore held accountable 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

The applicant cited his desire to return to military service. While the Board commends applicant on this desire, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on his reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

Applicant cited his desire to receive his G.I. Bill education benefits as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits on applicant, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

If the applicant can provide additional information about his discharge, and documented evidence to substantiate an inequity or impropriety, he should consider exercising his right to a personal appearance hearing, and be prepared to present the Board 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 wit h 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