AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
•• •:11·n

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
·	'COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi.
YES	NO '
x

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x
! X
x x x

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

SUBMITT   ..TQ,"fHE BOXIID
}	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
3	
27 JUN 03

FD2002-0431	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
DITJONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 'RSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDJNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea rance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

. DTE: 2'J JUN 03

SECRETAR	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

FD02-043 l	

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

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

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 states the circumstances that led to his discharge were not appropriately reviewed because he states he had already been approved for a medical retirement months prior to his command's decision to issue his discharge. He also states that his discharge was a direct result of his illness. The record indicates the applicant received three Article 15s for being AWOL, wrongfully used his government credit card and for dishonorably failing to pay just debts. The record was reviewed in its entirety and found to be legally sufficient. The applicants' case file was sent to SAF/MIB as a dual action (medical vs. administrative) case. It was decided that the Administrative discharge was more appropriate. 'Ibe record also indicates that the OSI had a pending investigation for drug use by the applicant for cocaine use. The Board concluded the applicant's 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.

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