AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF THE BOARD

-----------------+-----+-----+------+-------xi---·-···....
x x x x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXHlllITS SUJIMITI'F,D TO THE BOARD

A94.05

A67.90	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEAii.ING DATE	CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF	RSONNEL FILE

1 JUL 03

FD2003M0016

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

TAPE RECORDING Of PERSON AL APPERANCE IIEARrffc  ,,._
APl'tlcANT'S JSSUE AND Tlill BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

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

TO:	Fii.OM:
SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I 50-4742

DATE: 1 JUL 03

SECRETARY OF TI IE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM OM2077, JAN 00	(EFMV2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0016	

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 it was hastily decided and inadequate considering that the conviction that was brought upon him was taken care of immediately, which was being late for duty and for returned checks.  The record indicates the app1icant received two Article 1   for failure to go, and for writing bad checks for a total of $6,880.13. He also received a Vacation of suspended non­ judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. He also received three Letters of Reprimand for failing his room inspection, failure to go and for making a false statement. And, two Records of  Individual Counseling for failing to properly account for tools and for being late for work. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. 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	

'