AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAMI<; OJ• SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

•	12 tlUlllt
•	

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW
1--(;0.   U_.N_SE_._..--J..,-N-.A   -  :1u-{:_)lJNSf:1.A_N_D_O_R_O_RG"'"A-N__J'..A·1·1"0"N.,..-----------1-A-D-D_R_E_SS,_..A ND-,O..ifORG'ANiZA_T_IO_N_O_F_C_O_U_N_SE_L	,
,
YES	NO
x

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x
ISSUES	JNDF.X NUMllER
A92.37, A94.0S, A93.0l	A67.t 0	}	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

L FILE

FD2002·0270	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

SAF/MIBR
550 C STRE	EST, 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	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0270	

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

The app1icant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.

The attached b1ief 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 at l east one verbal counseling, four Records  of Individual Counseling, two Letters of Reprimand, two Articles 15, an Unfavorable Information File, and Control Roster action. His misconduct included six instances of failure to go, sleeping on duty, and driving while intoxicated. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting probation and rehabilitation, and submitted three character references. The commander's letter recommending discharge noted that all attempts to rehabilitate member were unsuccessful, and retention would not be consistent with maintenance of good order and discipJine. Member now infers the discharge was too harsh because he should not have to "continue to suffer" as a result of mistakes he made due to "youth and immaturity," although with the exception of one incident he denies, he admits what he did was wrong and has no excuse for his behavior. Member requests clemency. The Board noted member had nine incidents in a 13-month period, thus clearly establishing a pattern. 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 rehabi litative efforts. He was mature and responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. Because the member received an administrative discharge, not a punitive discharge, the Board must find and inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade; clemency is not available as a reason for upgrading an administrative discharge. 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 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