AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, f"IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	-GRADE	AFSN!SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEi. AND OR ORGANIZAHON

X    RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7.ATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING	llON
x x x x x

HEARING DATE
02-12-09

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

NUMBER
FD2002·0267

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

API'LICANT'S ISSUE AND	RATIONAL ARE DI	TTACHED AIR FORCE REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET	T, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0 2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY Of THE AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, M D 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0267	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had three Records of Individual Counseling, four Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15. His misconduct included three instances of failure to go, sleeping on duty, smoking in a government vehicJe while transporting live munitions, and failing to follow proper technical order procedures while working on munitions. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf: Member now infers the discharge was inappropriate because he  was inexperienced and received insufficient supervision. The board found this issue without merit. The Board noted member had eight incidents in a 9- month period, thus clearly establishing a pattern of misconduct. The Board further noted that member was the same age as other airmen who adhere to the standards when his misconduct occurred, and he knew right from wrong. He was counseled repeatedly in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies and had many opportunities to improve his behavior. He failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. He was responsible for his own actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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 conc1udes 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