-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITL\L)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·-

TYPE

I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x   RECORD  REVIEW

00l1NSEL	NAMF; OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
,' < <
YES	NO
x

I
VOTE OF TIIE BOARD
MEMBERS    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
------------	--------------- :1	x
'

x

'
'
'
'
'

'	x

'
'
'

x

'
'
'
'' '
'	x
------------------------------------ '
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBF.R	EXHIBITS SUBMITTEI) TO THE BOARD
A93.0l	A67. 10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE
15 APR 03	FD2002-0441	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TlME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
.'APPLICANT'S ISSUE,i\Ntl '.f!il!BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DJSCBARGE REVIEW BOARD DEClSJONAL RATIONALE.
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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.

SJ  !l-I.Y-Q	9.19!1!- _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I_ §!q TY_<!l'.:!l!l!lo!IP_'.'. 1.!'I)"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -,
'	'

'

'
'	'
t:-	----    --------------------.-::.,.--.    ,..----- --------------------------------------------------------------r --- --- ----- --'
'	''
''	'
.	._· .	. :' ;,:< J;: .:"'. , . ·' "'	·.· .   lNDOR$.'"  L:\ .	DATE:  15 APR 03
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MIBR	SECRETARY OF TH E AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742		1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3llD 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

FD02-044  J	

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 does not contest his discharge. He states that it was too harsh because he made a huge mistake and was young and home sick. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go. In addition, he received four Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, twice failing to report for duty on time, and for illegally storing firearms in the dormitory. In addition, he received six  Letters  of Counseling for reckless driving, failure to be at the appointed place of duty and failure to notify supervisor of his whereabouts, financial irresponsibility and being late for duty. The DRB recognized  the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature of did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older then the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The Board concluded  the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all  mi litary  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