AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD.H.EARING  RECORD

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

AFSN/SSAN

YES
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME 01' COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOTE OF THE BOARI>

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBll:s SUBMITl};D TO THE BOARll

A67.10	I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR R EVI EW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
9 Jan 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-03 l7

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TJME OF PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
M.fi i'\TO:,SJSl:fE f'NP THE B.0A!!fl'5c p7c1.SIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, O.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a persona l appearance with/wit hout cou nsel, and the right to submit an application  to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, 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

FD02-0317	

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 lead ing 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 contends that his discharge was too harsh and believes there is insufficient evidence of a pattern of misconduct. He also states that his job performance was excellent and his record since discharge has been commendable. He concludes by saying his ability to serve was impaired by his abuse of alcohol on his off duty time which he attributes to his youth and immaturity. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15's for stealing and being drunk and disorderly, disrespectful in language and using provoking words towards a female. He also received a Verbal Counseling for disregarding a stop sign, a traffic ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign, and a Record of Individual Counseling for making a false official statement. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports and other information contained in the records. They found the significant negative aspects of the applicant conduct outweigh positive aspects of his military record. The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older then the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge. The characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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