·"!.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

211111 I	TI  I  I •·
TYPE
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZAHON

AllllRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION O•' COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

JION

Gli:N

von:or TlIE llOA1ID
uornc

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS     SUBMITil!lU:'{	ARD
A67.50	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
9 Jan 03

CASI: NUMBER
FD2002-0336

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
APl'LICANF'S ISSUE.AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 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.

			

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Ro 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

FD02-0336	

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 he had a problem  with alcohol and was not given the opportunity for treatment. The record  indicates the applicant received two Article 15's for writing bad checks and leaving his place of duty. He also received four Letters of Reprimand for Driving Under the Influence (twice), writing bad checks, financial irresponsibility, and failure to move out of base housing within the established time limit. The two DUI's involved civil authorities and after the first one, applicant was entered into the alcohol rehabilitation program. 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