AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
, 1111 I	3111 1111  •	-

'   NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST  MIDDLE  INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING	HON

VOTE OF THE BOARD GEN	UOTHC

OT!IER

DENY
x
! x
x x x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED '.1'0 THE BOARD

A93.01

A67.90	l	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLJCATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TJON

HEARING DATE
26 FEB 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0433

4		BRIEF OF PERSON NEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TllE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL  APPERANCE  HEARING MPLICANT'SJSSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSEJJON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAJ.E.
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Ad vise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appearance with/without cou nsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AF.BCMR.

-	. . ... • ,:_  ... _,,	· --
-	---
FROM:

E: 26 FEB 03

SAF/M IBR
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, 31U1 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

FD02-0433	

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.

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 does not contest the discharge. He admits that he had some minor misconduct but now that he is older, he has matured and would like his discharge to be upgraded. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go. He also received seven Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for Dereliction of duties, failure to report a vehicle accident, failure to go, being late for work four times, failure to perfonn his duties, and failure to secure equipment. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to	his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The DRB also recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first.term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. 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