-

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

YES	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OP COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF tJ:IE,BOARD
· ·'' 1
HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A93.09

HEARING DATE
20 JUN 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67.50

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0022

EXHIBITS SUBMITTEll TO TllE BOARD·
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S 1ss.ue AN)) THE BOARD'S DEClSI NAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR 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 appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:

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

DATE: 20 JUN 03

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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

FDOJ-0022	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge and to change the RE Code.

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 states his discharge was too harsh because he was going through some personal problems. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go and making a false official statement. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for failure to go. In addition, he received five Letters of Reprimand for failure to go (twice), being late for duty, financial irresponsibility (twice), and failure to meet a scheduled appointment. The Board recognized the applicant served almost seven years and had no problems until his last year of service. If the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. Ifhe 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 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.

Inview 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