AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

IllP	·11	I t Ell	dill 11 Hlll l
TYPE

GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA.TION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	NO
x

MEMBERS  SITTING	HON

'
--------------------------------------------    ·

GEN

UOTHC

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A94.53, A92.37	A67.10

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

03-05-16

FD2003-00090	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel. DD Fm 149 submitted. The case wil.I be forwarded to the AFBCMR for further processing.

_ _   _ _ _ _ ..._ _ _.t _ _ _ _ §!G J!Jm.:_Qf.:!IQ!lJ>-'- l!>illl:f_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

FD2003-00090	

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

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 is denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had an Article  15, five Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling. His misconduct included at least eight instances of failure to go or missing appointments, failing to follow lawful orders or instructions, a dress and appearance violation, and disrespect to a superior noncommissioned officer on three occasions. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting retention in order to receive his
G.I. Bill education benefits. The Board noted member was given many opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them because his misconduct was disruptive to the unit. The board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade, and no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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