AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
t

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

1 1 11111

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X   RECORD REVJEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR 0RGANl7ATION OF COUNSEi.

MEMBERS SITTING

HO!ll

GEN

VOTE OF TIIE BOARD

UOTHC	OTHER

lll:NY
x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.90

EXlll.BIT'S SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

REARlNGDATE
24 JUN 03

(:ASE NUMBER
FD2003-0102

ER OF NOTIFICATION

	
	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
	ADDlTIONAL EXHIBJTS SUBMITTED AT  TlME OF PERSONAL  APP£ARANCE		

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HE
APPUCANJ:'.S ISSUE AND TH,Bti0'DECISIONAL RATIONAL AWEDIS'CUSll,J;ll:JONTilE ATTACHED AlRfORCll DISCHARGE REVJEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
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 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

FROM:

(Ef-V2)

DATE; 24 JUN 03

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
I 535 COMMAN D DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0102	

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 does not contest his discharge.  He merely wants an honorable discharge for the purpose of competing for jobs. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15s, the first for fleeing apprehension by running from an armed forces policeman. The second for being disrespectful in language toward two senior NCOs, being disorderly, and wrongfully communicating a threat to another aim1an. He then received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for resisting apprehension, wrongfully communicated a threat to other airman and to his wife. In addition, he received a Letter of Counseling for a civil arrest and incarceration for a traffic violation and failure to inform his chain of command. The applicant also had 20 days lost time for being incarcerated. The Board concluded the applicant's 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 concJudes 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	

\..