AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAi,)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

- 11 1 •'.1

1     2  1

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

x

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOTE OF THE !!OARD

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMITfED TO THE    OARD

A94.05

A67. 10, A49.00	ORDER  APPOINTING  THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
20 JUN 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002,0195

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

1

'  ;Al'PUCANFS ISSUE AND TIIE BOARD S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE !UlVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATlONALE.
1

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appea rance 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 WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0195	

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

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: Applicant states his discharge was too harsh because he was 2 days late returning from leave. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for being absent without official leave and writing bad checks. In addition, he received four Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, writing bad checks, lying and for being late to work. This is obvious more than just being late  returning  from  leave.  The  Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization  of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.  The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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