NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ.<1.TlON	ADORESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HEARINC DATE
23 AUG 02

INDEX NUMBER
A67.90

CASENUM8ER
FD2002-0l 73

x
x x x x
'•• ':i\\;;;·:\#i;"'·'·lt';Qlt!llT;ll:&l.l'dltf ill\l!it:1•1JIWJl!i'mFIW:f0;:: ,:'•••. ;;*it ;,, ... ·:x;c:
1	ORDER APPOINTINQ. THE BOARD
2
3
4

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TI!v!E OF PERSONAL o.PPEARANC:E

1ARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a pcnonal appearance, nod 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 AlR FORCE PERSON NEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COil.Hv!AND DR, EE WfNG, 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

FD02-0 I 73	

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 neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify  a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant believes his discharge was improper because it was based on one isolated incident in 35 months of service.  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 for driving on base with a suspended driver's license and without authority, go from his appointed place of duty.  The applicant also received two Letters of Reprimand for assault and failure to comply with instructions.  The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the appli cant 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 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 d ischarge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief