NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDJ,E INITIAL)

G.RA.DE

AFSN/SSAN

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
SEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSl:L

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x

ISSUES
A94.05

INDl:X NUMBER
A67. 10

HEARING DATE
6 FEBRUARY 2002

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0241

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

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE REARJNG

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance, with or without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR .

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 711150-4742

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	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD20020241	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined to exercise this right through written notification.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of RE code are denied.

The Board finds that the evidence of record does not substantiate an impropriety that would alone justify an upgrade of the discharge.

Issues.  The member was separated with a general discharge after receiving two Article-15 's and one Letter of Reprimand over the course of his 2 years and 14 days of military service, for two instances of underage consumption of alcoholic beverages (13 May 2000 and 10 August 2001), one charge of failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (Meade County Courthouse, Sturgis, South Dakota), and for failure to obey a lawful order to remove a healing post from his ear, and violation of AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance, by wrongfully wearing earrings off-duty on a military installation, for which he received a suspended reduction to the rank of Airman Basic in June 2000, followed, in September 2001 with another suspended reduction to the grade of Airman, along with forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 30 days extra duty.  The applicant challenged the fairness of his initial Article-I S, citing his "integrity" in self-reporting the incident which occurred at an off-base location.  The applicant also challenged his "failure to obey" a lawful order, which he later followed, citing his attention was focused at the time on two other noncommissioned  officers who were "yelling" at him for wearing an earring post.
The applicant presented mitigating evidence of the charges of his failure to go to his prescribed place of duty, by submission of a copy of the written ticket to appear in a civilian court, with a reporting date, which differs from the date of his alleged offense. The applicant states that he did in fact attend his directed court appearance and remitted payment of his fine. For the dress and appearance violation, the applicant denies his guilt and countered that his was a case of mistaken identify, as there were four other individuals in his
organization who are blonde males, one of whom could have been the violator.  However, the DRB noted	
the following excerpt from an email transmission from the applicant's first sergeant to the officer who identified him as the violator which reads:" I spoke with  .	, he admitted that he was wrong in wearing earrings, he also stated that he wasn't going to remove them either, further into the conversation he blatantly admitted that he didn't care about anything that he has done that has gotten him into trouble".  The applicant has provided a facsimile request for correction of his current RE code, 4H, which he states is a "medical code". The applicant cited several positive aspects of his career, including a complimentary performance feedback document he received, dated 28 February 2001, comments for a "great job" by an
Air Combat Command inspector, during a unit inspection, and his involvement in numerous base and community activities, such as the Youth Sports Coaches Association and the Aim1en's Council.  The DRB opined the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and that the seriousness of his willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of his duty performance.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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 DRB further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for change of reason for discharge and change of RE code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.   Any alterations in the applicant's RE code, shall be for the correction of clerical errors only.

Attachment: Examiner's  Brief