AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
a 111 11m r•
TYPE
GEN	X  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

MEMBERS SITTING

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

A93.15, A93.33, A94.05, A94.11

A67.10	]	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3.  LETTER OF NOT!F!CATION

HEARING DATE
13 MAY 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0436

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCI;: HEARING
Al'PL!CANT'S ISSUE ANO THI!'..	WBQl)ECISIQJ'!t\l)@'l·.

REMARKS

Case heard at Andrews AFB, MD.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and his right to appeal to the Board for Correction of Milita ry Records.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 7&150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PBRSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WINO, 31W FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.
l

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0436	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and for a change in the  Code and the Reason and Authority for discharge.

The applicant's case was considered by the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Andrews AFB, MD, on May 13, 2003. The applicant appeared before the DRB without counsel. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant's Contentions; Exhibit 6: Physical Profile Serial Report

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

FINDINGS: The DRB denies the requested relief. The DRB finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant does not substantiate an inequity or an impropriety justifying an upgrade of the discharge, a change to the RE Code, or a change in the Reason and Authority for the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General service characterization from the Air Force for misconduct or, more specifically, minor disciplinary infractions. He had three letters of reprimand: one for dereliction of duty related to his failure to perform duties he had been directed to perform; one for assault and harassment concerning his attempt to force another airman to give him $20 and then pushing him to the ground when the airman refused; and one for failing his dormitory room inspection despite being given an opportunity to clean the room to avoid failing the inspection. He has one letter of counseling for failure to follow orders to bring his identification to the unit sweep urinalysis as he was required to do. He also has one Article 15 for dereliction of duty in connection with his failure to perform his bay orderly duties and for sleeping while on duty. The applicant raised three issues. complained that the discharge action was too harsh, that he had been singled out for unfair treatment and received improper training, and that he was the victim of racial discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board (DRB) concluded that none of the issues have merit.

At the outset, it should be noted that the DRB found absolutely no evidence of racial discrimination by any member of the Air Force. The applicant provided no evidence of discrimination and could not provide an explanation concerning his perception in this regard. While there may have been animosity on the part of the applicant's command, that appears to have been the product of factors other than racial discrimination - for example, repeated behavioral problems. There is also no indication the applicant was singled out for unfair treatment, subject to overly harsh punishment, or improperly trained regarding the standards expected of him. According to the record, the command took repeated disciplinary action against him only because he repeatedly engaged in misconduct. The actions taken were proportional responses to the misconduct in which the applicant engaged. The applicant attempted to minimize his misconduct by providing descriptions of the various events that made the applicant's actions appear to be significantly less serious (and in some cases, completely different) than the records indicate. The DRB was not convinced by the applicant's testimony, finding it to be inherently improbable, internally inconsistent, and contradictory. For example, the applicant testified that rather than attempting to force the airmen to give him $20, he asked the airman-a person he barely knew-if he could "hold" $20. Crediting the facts as set forth in the record, the DRB found no inequity or impropriety in the disciplinary actions taken or in the discharge action.

Having found no inequity or impropriety, the DRB declines to upgrade the discharge or change any other aspect of the applicant's record. The requested relief is denied.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief