AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

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

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAM£ OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YE.'i	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON

GEN

VOTE OF TllE BOARD

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x
x x x x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMITTEb TO THE BOARD

A94.05

A67.10, A49.00	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOAR D
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
19 DEC 02

E NUMBER
FD2002-0215

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCF, HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED QN THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE! REVIEW BOARD DEflSIONAL RATIONALf

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appeara nce 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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF TH E AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0215	

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

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

ISSUE:  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that he should have been discharged for unsatisfactory progress or that he should have been discharged in June 2000.  The record shows that the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go.  In addition, he also received three Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, and failure to meet dress and appearance standards, five Letters of Individual Counseling for failure to go (three times), failure to maintain room in inspection order, a Memorandum For Record for failure to meet dress and appearance standards, and two Reports of Course Examination for failure to progress in On-The-Job training.   Ifthe applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If he should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well an any contributions to the community.  The board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from 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 and that the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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