AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
Ill	AFSN/SSAN	
	
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
X   RECORD REVIEW	
	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADllR:fSS AND OR ORGANIZA110N OF COUNSEL	

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A93.0J, A92.37, A94.S3	A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
1	
HEARING DATE
lO JULY 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00048
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT T!ME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and 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 RANOOLPH 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

FD2003-00048	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for his discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

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, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. He has received seven Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "2," had an Unfavorable Information file, and was placed on the Control Roster. His misconduct included multiple incidents of dereliction of duty, multiple incidents of failing to obey orders, multiple incidents of failure to go, negligent government vehicle operation resulting in property damage, disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned officer, nonavailability while on recall standby, and two instances of failure to maintain his dormitory room within standards. These all occurred within a 12-month period. At the time of the discharge member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting retention and retraining. Applicant now concedes he made some "stupid mistakes" and apologizes for his actions. Member was age 19 and 20 when his infractions occurred, the same age as other airmen who adhere to the standards expected of them, and there is no evidence he did not know right from wrong. The Board concluded that member committed the offenses and they were sufficient to warrant a general discharge. And although given many opportunities to conform his behavior to that expected of him, he was unwilling or unable to do so. In view of all the available information, the Board found the record supports the characterization of service received, and could find no inequity or impropriety upon which to base an upgrade.

Applicant cited his desire to return to military service in the Air National Guard as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the general discharge and resulting reenlistment code on applicant, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

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