AB

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	·AFS·N·ISSAN-

TYPE GEN	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x

x

ISSUES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

x x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
2	
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

07 Dec 2003

FD-2002-0405

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF lHE 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

FD2002-0405	

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.

I
The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:   Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is denied.

The Board  finds that neither  the  evidence of record  nor  that provided  by the applicant  substantiates an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received three Articles 15, nine Letters of Reprimand, and six Letters of Counseling.  The misconduct included driving under the influence, sleeping on post, late for duty, failure to go, financial irresponsibility, failure to obey, unauthorized charges on government travel card, late for an appointment, and malingering.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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.

Inview of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief