AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

AMN

COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEi. AND OR ORGANIZA.TION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COIJNSEJ.

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

von:OF THE 80ARJ>
GEN	UOTtJC

PENY
x x x x x

ISSUES
AOl.00, A95.00

INPEX NIJMBER
A67.10	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Of DISCHARGE
3	LETTER Of NOTIFJCATION
2	
HEARING DATE
16 JUL 03

CASENIJMBER
FD2003-00119

4		BRIEF Of PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDffiONAJ. EXHIBITS SUBMITT'ED AT TIMf. Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCf. HF.ARING

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, JAl"i 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 RATlONALE	CASE NUMBf'.R

FD2003-00119	

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 the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brie£

Issue. The Board finds that the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the board was able to identify none.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 1Ss, four Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and one Letter of Admonishment  for misconduct.  The misconduct included being absent without authority, failure to go, financial irresponsibility, later for work on four separate occasions, and disrespect for superiors and chain of command.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  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.

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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief