AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
•	a11n1r•·
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
'.ei    NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS SITTING	llON	GEN	OTllER

DENY
x x x x x

.' ,•
A67.90	I
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

6 MAY 03

FD2002-0439	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

FROM:

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0439	

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 contends that his discharge was too harsh because the Article 15 he received for being AWOL was due to a broken down car. The record indicates the applicant received two Article's 15. The first one for being AWOL for three days and the second one for wrongfully using his government charge card for purposes other than official government travel. He also received three Letters of Counseling for not returning to work after an appointment, being derelict in the performance of his duty and for being late for work. The applicant indicates that he was stuck in Savannah Georgia for the weekend during the period of 26 May 98 through 29 May 98. However, the second Article 15 he received indicates that he used his government credit card in Houston Texas and in Savannah Georgia during that same time frame. If he can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the  applicant  should  consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If he should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community. 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