AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

AFSN/SSAN 	

I CE 111111.t

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X  RECORD REVIEW

l'COUNSEi.AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION 01' COUNSEi,

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A49.oo

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

Hl:ARINGDATE
19 JUN 03

CASli:NUMBli:R
FD2002-0420

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

Case beard at And rews AFB, MD

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

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 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

FD2002-0421	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for his discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant was scheduled for a Personal Appearance before the Discharge Review Board at Andrews AFB, MD, on June 19, 2003, but after acknowledging intent to appear, failed to do so without requesting a postponement.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

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.

Issues. Applicant received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for unsatisfactory performance, namely failure to progress in on-the-job training, after he twice failed his end-of-course exam for his Career Development Course. Although not a basis for the discharge, member also had misconduct during the enlistment under review, which was used to characterize his service. That misconduct included a civilian arrest for drunk in public, failure to go to a mandatory appointment that had been rescheduled three times, failure to pay his Army Air Force Exchange System Deferred Payment Program account, misusing his government travel card, and failure to adequately support his dependent son. For these offenses he had received three Letters of Reprimand and a referral Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall "2." The record review also showed member had entries for substance abuse rehabilitation and treatment, as well as family advocacy program entries during the enlistment under review. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. He had previously indicated to his chain of command an expressed desire to be discharged. The Board noted an error in the processing of the discharge in that five incidents of misconduct from a previous enlistment were used to characterize member's service; this was improper because incidents from a previous enlistment may only be used to determine if a member should be discharged, but not what characterization of service should be given. The Board concluded however that this was a harmless error in that member's misconduct during the enlistment under review was severe enough to warrant the general discharge, and the issuance of same was not an abuse of command discretion. The Board further noted member's breaches of discipline deviated from standards expected of all Air Force members. Such unacceptable conduct warranted the discharge applicant received; it does not warrant an honorable characterization. The oard finds the applicant's discharge to be appropriate and in accordance with Air Force policy.	)-

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