NAME OF COUNS!lL •.\'.\ID OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x x

A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER
A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
1	

HEARING DATE

C.4. E NUMBER
3	
LETrER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

27 AUG 02

FD2002-0190	COUNSEL'S
ADDITIONAL  EXH!Bl f s SUBMITTED AT  TL\,[E  OF PERSONAL  .<\PPEARANCE

KS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal ap11carance, 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 REVIE\Y BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

·-- ·--.----·· ·-   (_E_F VJ2_ _) 	

Previous edition,viTf beused.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE Nl1MBER

FD02-0190	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and to change the RE Code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but decl ined to exercise this right
-	--
.	'	.
The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applica nt and the factors leading to the
discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that ne.itnf   £idence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest the discharge. He states that he was young and im mature at the ti me. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriet y or i nequ ity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The records indicated the applicant recei ved two Article 15's for being AWOL and fail ing to report his status and not contacting t he unit to request a leave extension, and for wrongfully opening and stealing Sony compact disc games from the Post Office. ln add ition, he received a Letter of Reprimand for threatening language. The DRB  recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evid ence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older then the  vast  majori ty  of  first-term  members  who properl y adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and concluded that the characteri zation of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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 find ings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge shou ld not be changed

Attachment: Examiner's Brief