AIR 'FORCE DISCHARGE R'13VTEW BOARD HEARlNG RECORD
NAMf:·OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAi.,)	GRADE	AFSNISSAN 	

TYPE

GEN
COUNS'EJ,
YES	NO
x

I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x  RECORD REVIEW

--

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	AI>l>RESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

von;OF THE BOARD
MEMBERS SITTING	HON	GEN	UO'l'HC	OTIIER	DENY

COL JOSEPH M. MARCHINO II

aaURACE R. CARSON
COL THOMAS E. HMIMEN LT COL FELIX A. LOSCO
...,_,....,.......,..._,_...,......
LT COL R. GAYLE FULTS

x
x	I
x x

.

x

ISSlJli:S	INDEX NUMBER	EXHIBITS   SUBMlTl.l\D".f(lTID:,  BOARD
A93.0l, A93. 19, A94.53	A67. 10	I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE	I CASE NUMBER	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
03 04-09	FD2002-0352	COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE  BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXl:IlBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S lSSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AITACHED AlR 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.

"""''"[j'g	vV	r-	(JA..1::).-
R.GAY •	'	T	,u,.;;3f?;a.1u1'.lrH M. MARCHINO II, COLONEL, USAF

 	-	)
/	-........	"'

SlGNATIJJtE OJ' BOARD PRESIDENT   	

l/	(/	- --	'	' <: ',	I	/ , ,\'i>iil
/ I	L'IDORSEMENT	\	\ Dl-14	·.
I U:	0 /	FROM:	'
SAF	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 C &T  EET WEST, SUITE 40	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RAN	PH AFB, TX 78150-4742	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3w FLOOR
I	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

FD2002-0352	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but  declined  to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of the discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had three Articles 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included several instances of underage possession and use of alcohol, an incident of failure to go, and two offenses of playing loud music in the dormitory. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he explained he got caught in stop loss, otherwise he would have been separated at the completion of his term of service in October 2001. He had a civilian job waiting and processed a waiver, which was denied. Member then asked his First Sergeant if there was anything he could do but didn 't realize he would end up with a general discharge. Member asked to be retained long enough to separate with an honorable characterization of service at the conclusion of the stop loss period. The Board noted member did not dispute the occurrence of the infractions, and was given several opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was the same age as other airmen who successfully complete their tenns of service without any disciplinary infractions, and there was no evidence member didn't know right fro wrong or was immature. Because he was responsible for his actions he was held accountable for them. The Board did not find suflicient mitigation to warrant an upgrade, and no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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