AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

•

NAME OF 8,ERVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE
I

•111•	·
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x  RECOR D REVIEW

.COIJNStt»	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJ7,A TJON (W COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

VOTE OF l'llF. BOARI>
MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTllC	OTHER	DENY

x

-·---
-'      -----------------------------------------------
''
'	·-
'	
'

x
'

'

x
'

x

'
'

x

..;'	·-
'
''
'       ------------------------------------------------
ISSUES	INDEX  NUIBER	EXIIIBITS SUBMITJED TO THE BOARD 	
A93.01	A67.90	I ORDER APPOTNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
IIEARING DATE	CASE NUMllER	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
22 MAY 03	FD2002-0470	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUHMlTTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEAR fNG
APl'LICANT'S lSSilll'AN'D THll:l!OARD'S DECISIONAL ll.ATlbNAL ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISION AC RATIONALE.
,_
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise 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 AFBCMR.

,Sifill.AJJlRll.OF.M.CQJIDEIL _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ L .sJGNt\JJJMQt: Jl!>AIU!r1n:s1_o_Qt_'( _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  '
'
'' '
''
L------------------------------------------'                   -\    -',----------------------------------------------------------------

INril>asEMENT

TO:	FROM:

I	DATE:  22 MAY 03

SAF/MIBR	SECRETARY OF THE 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, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
. .
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed1t10n will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0470	

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 his discharge. He states that his youth and immaturity caused him to ruin a chance of a lifetime. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15s for unlawfully possessing alcohoJic beverages while under the age of twenty-one and for being drunk and disorderly and damaging a wall and a mirror in the dormitory. In addition, he received three Letters of Reprimand and six Letters of Counseling for failing his dormitory room inspection, dereliction of duty, assault, iIlegal parking, failure to perform duties in the designated area, being late for duty, failure to go and failure to obey an order concerning personal appearance. The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 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 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 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