.

l	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
•	.,

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
NAME OF COUNSEL ANO OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

x
.  x

x

INDEX  NUMBER
A92.37, A94.53	A67.10

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
02-10-25

CASE NUl\IBER
FD2002-0158

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WINO, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0l58	

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 at least one verbal counseling, five Letters of Counseling, an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, and an Unfavorable Information File. His misconduct included three instances of failure to go, three instances of disrespect to his supervisors, unruly conduct resulting in damage to government property, assault against another airman, fist fighting with a different airman, and threatening a noncommissioned officer. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting probation and rehabilitation, and submitted five character references. The commander's letter recommending discharge noted that member's "violent nature is not compatible with the Air Force" and that he had "a lack of respect for authority and was unwilling to follow directions of noncommissioned officers in his chain of command." Member had seven incidents in a 9-month period, thus clearly establishing a pattern. 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 counseled repeatedly in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies and had many opportunities to improve his behavior. He failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. He was mature and responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. 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