TYPE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
-

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

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL A.ND OR ORGA.NIZATION
NO
x

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZA'IION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBERS SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTllC

O'IHER
x x x x

ISSUES
A92.21, A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER
A67.90	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
llEA.RINC: DA.TE	c
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
2	
3 JUN 03

FD2003-00069	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXIIIDITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Or PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAl'li RECORDrNG OF PERSONAL AI'PERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S lSSUll AND 'tHE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DlSCUSSFJ) ONT ATTAC!fllP AWFbRCl!.DlSCHARGE REVIEW.BOARD DECISIONAT' RATIONALE.
'.;;    ,y

REMARKS

Case heard at Scott AFB, IJlinois.

Ad vise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submitt an application to the AFBCMR .

.

•

..

.:...	.	,_..,_._	,,,_
,..,..,.	I

.rNOORSEMENT

SAF/MIBR
550 C STRE:BT WEST, SUITE: 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00

FROM:

(EF-V2)

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE  NUMlll!:R

FD2003-00069	

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

The applicant's appeal was heard by the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Scott AFB IL, on June 3, 2003. The applicant did not appear.

Exhibit 5: Applicant's contentions. Exhibit 6: Reference Letter

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:    The request for upgrade of discharge to Honorable is denied.

1be Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General Discharge for misconduct, or more specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Member received one Article  15 for dereliction of duty for failing to remove a nipple ring and a navel ring as required by Air Force regulation. He received a second Article 15 for dereliction of duty for drinking alcohol underage. He also received two letters of reprimand for dereliction of duty (when he failed to respond to repeated pages from his work section) and for failure to go and dereliction of duty (when he failed to report for formation, wore earrings on base, and violated his curfew). He received seven records of individual  counseling  (RIC) for a variety of offenses. He was late to work on three occasions. Three of the RJCs relate to violations of dress and appearance standards. The other RIC relates to his failure to obey an order to  study  his  CDC  material.  Other misconduct in which the applicant engaged is documented with memorandums  for  record.  Those documents indicate the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duty when he failed to carry out a tasking assigned to him by a supervisor, engaged in financial irresponsibility, violated dress and appearance standards by wearing a navel and nipple ring after he had been told not to by  a  supervisor,  and  for displaying poor military bearing and a bad attitude. With regard to the latter, the applicant was counseled for stating, in a profane way, that he did not care about his job in the Air Force, would do only what he was told to do, and that he would do only the minimum amount necessary. In his submission to the DRB, the applicant states that he has matured significantly since that time and that he would like the opportunity to pursue his new goals unburdened by a less than fully honorable discharge.

The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate given the nature and extent of the applicant's misconduct. He repeatedly demonstrated utter disregard for the high standards expected of members of the Air Force dedicated to the service of this country. Through his misconduct, he practically scoffed at the requirements of Air Force service and the men and women who adhere to those standards every day. A review of the record discloses that the command's response to the applicant's misconduct was appropriate, equitable, and properly administered.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Having found no inequity or impropriety, the request for relief is denied.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief