•	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
•	
NAME OF SERVICE MEJ\.'IDER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAi,)

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OJ COUNSEL ANJ> OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

INDEX  NllMBER
A94.05	A67.90

AJ>l)lltSS AND Oil ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x
x
x

l ORDER APPOINTIN	HE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEAJllNG DATE
9 JUL 03

CASE NUMllEll
FD2003..0087

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADD!TlONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPER.ANCE HEARfNG

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, 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 781504742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CO
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WINO, 3Rn FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EFV2)	Previous edition will be t

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD03-0087

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 states that his discharge was too harsh because it was based on an isolated period of time during his 29 months of service. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for the purpose of avoiding service as an enlisted person, intentionally injured himself by cutting both forearms with a razor. He also received a Record of Individual Counseling for being late for work. This was not an isolated period. The record indicates the applicant has a history of self-mutilation, acts which were committed because he was trying to avoid continuing his military service obligation. The applicant was given the Article 15 after his second self-inflicted injury. The applicant's doctor noted that the applicant had expressed a strong desire to be discharged from the Air Force, and his self-inflicted injuries were nothing more than his way of trying to get out. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all 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