J

t
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECOR_o 	
.N	AME OF S>:RVl<CE MEMDER{LAST, Fill.ST Mllllll.: INITIAi .)	URADE	AFSNISSAN

OlHEJO:
x x x x x

IrnA.RrNG DJ. TR
4 0CT 02

CASJ!Nll.\1Bt:H
FD2002-ll199
1	
ORDER APPOINTING TllE DOARD
2	Al'l'LJCAT!ON fl.)R REVIEW OF L>lSCllAJWE
3	LETJER OF NOT!FlCAn<.lN
4	flRlEl' OF PERSONNEL FILE

R,EMAl:{K8
Case heard at Washingto11, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance witb/witbo11t counsel, and the righ! Sl•bmit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAFl:VllBR
llO C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150°4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR rORt r: PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCli /\.ROE R E VIEW DOARD l 35 COMJl.11\ND DU, EE \YlNtr, 3Ro fLOOR ANDREWS AFD, MD 2076Z-7MZ

AFHQFORM02o77,,_"J'AN_o,_,. -------,(,E""F"-' v2"')---·····---·-	Previou cdilion will be used.

AJR FORCE DISCHA RGE R EVIEW BOA RD DF.CISIONAL RATlONA LE	CASE Nt:J\-1 li€R

FD02-0l 99	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a per8onal appearance heforc 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.

FIND INGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied_

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

ISSU E:   Applicant  does not contest the discharge; he wants an upgrade for employment  purposes.	The lloard reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to
base an upgrade or discharge.  The records indicate the applicant recei ved an A11icle l 5 for failure to go on
two consecutive days; two Letters of Reprimand for failure to go and disobeying lawful orders, and a Memorandum For Record for missing appointments. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Hoard concluded the miscond uct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all mil itary members and concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge wall appropriate due lo the mi sconduct.

CONCLUSlONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge rcir.ulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full admin istrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board forther 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