PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL ANO OR ORG."llIZ.ATION

X RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

zssm;s
A95.00

HEARING DATE
5 SEP 02

MEMBERS SITTING

INDEX NUMBli: R
A67.SO

x x x x x
;•; '-t• %'1fUJAWiili!!:llN$l.!Rlil!mfl''(!l\1ltJIQ'Altlls• •  i'i •·• n:• ··· ., i • ;•:':
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FoR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF·OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

·s
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a Jlersonal appearance, and the right to submit an apfllication to thc AFBCMR

SAF!MIBR
5:50 c STREET WEST, st:rrn 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCf L AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMA1'"D DR. EE W!KG. 3w FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD020160	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge 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 leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge,
and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was able to identify none that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record.  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 applicant had an Article 15 for failure to go and a Vacation action of a suspended nonjudicial punishment.  He also received two Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseli ng for failure to go, two failures to pay just debts, and failure to complete his CDSs.  Article 15 was vacated due to the second Article 15.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative/repetitive behavior.  The Board concluded the patterns of misconduct were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was withi n 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