AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

GRAD!!:

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi.

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

O'rHER

DENY
x x x x x

HEARING DATE
27 JUN 03

INDEX NUMBER

-

A67.10
I

SE NUMBER
FD2003-0035

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LE'ITER OF NOTIFICATION

NAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
'.Ql<P; JSCHARGE REVIEW BOl)"J.fllCISlONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
Case heard 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.

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0035	

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 does not contest his discharge. He is under the impression that his discharge would be automatically upgraded to Honorable after six months. The DRB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication. While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties and a Vacation action under the UCMJ for wrongfully failing to maintain acceptable standards of behavior and wrongfully failing to adhere to the proper dress and appearance set forth in Air Force Regulations. In addition, he received five Letters of Reprimand for unsatisfactory performance, unauthorized absence and failure to report to duty, financial irresponsibility, failure to go and for missing callin. He also received two Records of Individual Counseling for failure to call-in, not being available during telephone standby, and a Memorandum for being late for duty on four consecutive days. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of alJ 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