I
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  R ECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
..	I
x  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW
•	UNSEL•  '1::../.     NAME OF COUNSEi, AND OR ORGANJMTION	ADDRF-SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

VOTE OF TllE BOARD
·.
MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	omER	DENY

COL JOSEPH M. MARCHINO II

COL GREGORY T. REHE COL THOMAS E. HAMMEN
MAJOR CHRISTOPHER C. VANNATTA

CMSGT DARYL R. LAWRENCE

I	x
I	x
•	I

i
x
I
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER	.. ··.	EXllllllTS  SUBMITTED  TO THE  ilQARD
A94.05	A67.10	I ORDER APPOINTfNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
REARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER	. 4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
8 MAY 03	FD2002-04 l0
I	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

I

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING	I
AJ'l'.LICANT'S ISS.UB AJilD THE BOARD'S DEGISIONAL RATIO!;!AL ARE DISCUSSED ON TilE ATTACHED AJR•FOCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

-

1 :
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

Applica nt also submitted a DD Form 149. His records will be forwarded to the Board for Correction of Milita ry Records.

i

C2:11	t<.
THOMAS E. HAMMEN, COLONEL. USAF	1                   JOSEPH M. MARCHINO II, COLONEL, USAF

SIGNATURE OF RECORDER	SIGNArnOF BOARD PRz T	-=.	.	-

,	.
<·	. ..

lNDORSEMENT

I	DATE:  8 MAY 03

TO:	•'ROM:
SAF/MIBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Ro FLOOR	i
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

.

J
'
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition wtll be used .

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0410	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board without counsel at Andrews AFB, MD, on 8 May 2003.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant's Contentions
Exhibit 6: Corrected copy, 31 Mar 03 letter fro Exhibit 7: Character letter fro

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 too harsh because the reason he received an Article 15 was because of a power surge. He also attached letters of recommendation attesting to the fact that he was a decent Airman and excelled in his job. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go and with intent to deceive, make an official statement, which was totally false. He also received a Vacation action on his suspended reduction to Ainnan because of a failure to go. In addition, he received three Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Admonishment, two Letters of Counseling, and an Memorandum for Record for failure to go, violation of AFI 36-2903, wearing substandard uniform combination, being late for class four times, violating the chain of command twice, and sleeping on duty twice. 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. 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.

Inview 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