AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (I.AST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

YES	NO
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZA TION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF'fHE BOARD

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A94.05

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
APPLICA TlON FOR REVIEW OF DJSCI IARGE

HEARING DATE
9 Jan 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0319

i    2
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
APPl;JCANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATIACHJID AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW llOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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.

QATE: 9 Jall 03

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, 3R1J FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EFV2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0319	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason for discharge, and change his RE Code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise th]s 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ISSUE: Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because paperwork in his file was outdated and not removed. He also states that he has had a chance to grow up, mature and that he has learned his lessons. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go. He also received three Letters of Reprimand  for being late for work (twice) and failure to adhere to a 24-hour quarters order. In addition, he received four Letters of Counseling and a Memorandum For Record for dereliction of duty (three times), missing his cycle ergometry test, failure to shine his shoes, being late for an appointment and failure to shave. 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