AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME m·SERVICE MEMBER {LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AJ;'SN/SSAN

	
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
X   RECORD REV	
	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA	

MEMBERS SITTING	

1!!111 •1•

IEW
TION Of' COUNSEL

x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
'   2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

BEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

10 JUL 03

FD2003  00054	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3m 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

FD2003-00054	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the 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, 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 was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  He had an Article 15 and three Letters of Reprimand, and one Enlisted Performance Report that was rated an overaH referral "3." His misconduct occurred over a I O-month period and included reading a novel while posted as a Security Forces sentinel, three instances of being late for work or missing an appointment, and twice playing a Nintendo Game Boy while posted. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel but waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. The Board noted that member was age 19 to 20 when his offenses occurred, the same age as other aim1en who adhere to standards. He was counseled several times in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies. In spite of those rehabilitative efforts, he was unwilling or unable to improve his behavior. The Board concluded applicant knew right from wrong and was responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant cited his desire to return to military service in the Army. While the Board commends applicant on this goal and is 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