/'

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

AFSN/SSAN

llldll llib

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NMIE 01' COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

A92.15, A92.19, A93.11, A94.05

HEARING DATE
2 JULY 2003

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00025

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

TAPE RECORDJNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANOOI.PH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WlNG, 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

FD2003-00025	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:   Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

Issue. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. Member received three Articles 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included financial irresponsibility on numerous occasions, making a false official statement, damage to government property, causing an accident by parking on railroad tracks during hours of darkness and violating a road closure sign. The applicant was given multiple opportunities to correct his deficiencies. He failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. The Board noted member's duty performance as documented by his performance reports and other information contained in the record. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge and that 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.

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