-·

TYPE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
- n•

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

p
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi,

MEMBERS  SITTING

VOTE OF THE BOARD

HON	Gl:N	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES
A93.0l

HEARING DATI:
15 NOV 02

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0273

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
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 EXl-llDITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEAR ING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND TI-IE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAi. RATIONALE

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

DATE: 15 NOV 02

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDR EWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0273	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.

ISSUE: Applicant is not contesting the discharge. He admits he made some bad decisions and mistakes and they were due to him immaturity and lack of self-control. The record indicates the applicant received two Article lS's. The first one for sleeping at his post. The second one for failure to go. In addition, the applicant received six Letters of Reprimand for failure to go (twice), financial irresponsibility, violation of dress and appearance standards (twice), and failure to have the required equipment on during an element guard mount. And, three Letters of Counseling for failure to go (twice) and writing a bad check. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports and other information contained in the record. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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