NAME OF SERVI.C.E ME.MBE-R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

AMN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

GEN

omER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
AOl.47, A94.11, A94.05	A67.90	1	ORDER APPOINTING lliE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
22 JULY 2003

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00120

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMIITED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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.

AF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00120	

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 that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had two Articles 15, five Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and an Unfavorable Information File. His misconduct included failure to go, sleeping on duty, failure to obey orders and general regulations, improperly chambering an M-16 rifle round then clearing it without supervision, dress and appearance violations, failure to maintain his quarters to standards, and speeding and reckless driving. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted one character reference in his own behalf. Applicant now contends his inexperienced supervisor preferred to discipline him rather than help him, and by the time he got a new supervisor who was more sympathetic, it was too late and 'the damage was done." The commander had decided to discharge him. The Board found this issue without merit. The Board noted member was given several opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was age 19 when his misconduct occurred, the same age as other airmen who honorably complete their service without misconduct. There was no evidence he was immature, or didn't know right from wrong. The Board determined 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