AIR f.'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
m 1 •11 1.,IJ!S •l:d•S sa	••• 111n•r
TYPE
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDru:ss AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi,

DENY
x x x
x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.50	1	ORDER APPOJNTJNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARJNGDATE
7 JAN 03

CA$ENUMBER
FD2002-0313

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 HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appearance 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 THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Ro FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0313	

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

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.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that his misconduct occurred  off duty and away from the base. The record indicates that the applicant was arrested by local police for driving under the influence of alcohol twice. He received a Letter  of Reprimand after the first arrest and sent to the ADAPT Program. He finished the program and then was arrested again for the same thing and received another Letter of Reprimand. Since the applicant was unwilling to respond to past rehabilitative efforts and there was no evidence to suggest that further attempts to correct his behavior would have been effective in this case, he was discharged. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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