AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL
'	YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTIIC

OTHER

DNY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A94.05

INDEX NUMBER
A67.to	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
30APR 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0034
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
,'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
AD	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
Bq!)SSEP, QN THEATIACHEp AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEWBOAR!J DECISIONAl. RATIONAL!!.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SIGNATURE OF RECORDER

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

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0034	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge and 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 contends that his discharge was too harsh in that he fell asleep because he was working too many hours due to having to perform an additional 45 days extra duty from the first time he fell asleep at his post. The record indicates the applicant received three Articles 15 for sleeping on post twice and failure to go. The failure to go resulted in a Vacation action from the first Article 15 and the applicant was reduced in grade to Airman.  The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge. The Board further concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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