AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

•GRADE

AJ<'SN/SSAN
JllllJ l 1 mr

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

OF TBE llOAlU>

UOTilC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

lSSUES
A94.05, A93.19

lNDEX NlJMllER
A67.10	1	ORDER APPOINTING nm BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
18 JUN 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0023

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FJLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDJTIONAL EXlllBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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 AF.BCMR.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL corn
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3w FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be us1

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0023	

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 of a SRA that was his supervisor and had it out for him. He also states that he was not properly trained and because of the pressure and feeling frustrated, he started drinking (underage). The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15s for dereliction of duty and for driving while intoxicated, and a Vacation action under the UCMJ for dereliction of duty. He also received four Letters of Reprimand for failure to go (twice) and making a false official statement, being late for work and wearing an unauthorized article of clothing, failure to obey an order and underage drinking. In addition, he received two Records  of  Individual  Counseling  and  seven Memorandums for Record for being late for work several times, failure to perform assigned duties and dereliction of duty (five times). The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The fact that a SRA was his supervisor and had it out for him is without merit. Several of the reprimands were given by a Major, a MSgt, the 1st Sgt and commander. 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.

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