. .,

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

r
TYPE
GEN	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	NO

MEMBERS  SITTING	JiON

x

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x
x
x

x

HEARING DATE
9 APR 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0347

1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

'S DECISIQ?-IAL l!A110NAL

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
o;;msCHAA:G!$>Rav

REMARKS

Case heard at And rews AFB, MD

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd and his rigth to appeal to the Boa rd for Correction of Milita ry Records.

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 CQMMAND DR, EB WING, JRD 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

FD2002·0347	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade  of discharge to Honorable and for a change in the Reason and Authority for Discharge and to the RE Code.

The applicant's case was considered by the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Andrews AFB MD, on 9 April, 2003.  The applicant did not appear despite having an appointment for a personal appearance.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:   The DRB denies the requested relief.
The DRB finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant does not substantiate an inequity or an impropriety that would justify an upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General service characterization from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. He had an Article 15 for driving while intoxicated, drinking underage, and fai)ure to obey a superior commissioned officer. He also received three letters of reprimand, two of which concerned failure to go for being late to work, and the other concerned damaging military property and dereliction of duty for failing to report the damage. He then received a second Article 15 for dereliction of duty connected to his unauthorized personal use of his government credit card. There was also information in the file that suggested the member was involved in stalking a young female airman. However, no disciplinary action appears to have been taken for this behavior.

The member did not have any specific issues, but simply requested a review to provide him with, in effect, a second chance to return to the Air Force and serve his country.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board (DRB) concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was not an abuse of discretion of the discharge authority. As a procedural matter, there appeared to be no errors or irregularities associated with the processing of his case. Nor is there any problem with the disciplinary responses to his instances of misconduct. They were measured and appropriate. Indeed,  the DRB was troubled by  the number of infractions and the seriousness of the misconduct, particularly the DWI an.d the misuse of the government credit card.  There did not appear to be any inequities in the member's case.

The applicant's appeal is, therefore, denied.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief