AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME Of SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AlC

m nmn112za

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSll.AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
-------------------------------------------------- .'
'
'

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A93.33

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

A93.21	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

03 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00124

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/MRBR
550 C STREE	ST, 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
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00124

The applicant was offered a personal- appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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 the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. The records indicated the applicant received five Letters of Reprimand, four Letters of Counseling, and two Memorandums for Record for misconduct. His infractions included seven incidents of failure to go or being late for work, unsatisfactory performance on the Weight Management Program, and driving without proof of insurance or a properly displayed license plate.  Applicant contends one of his civilian supervisors, Mr.         unfairly singled him
out for disciplinary actions. The records do not support this contention in that of the 11 documents issued regarding member's misconduct, Mr. 1111. signed only one. Seven other different personnel signed the others.  Mr:-lm- was also not a rater or indorser on either of member's Enlisted Performance Reports, the
last of which documented member' s poor attitude and lack of judgment. The DRB opined that through the unit's many administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling or unable to do so. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issues 2 and 3. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account medical problems he had while in the service, and that he was out-processed so quickly that his separation physical wasn't completed. Because member's medical records were missing from the record and unavailable for review, the Board was unable to ascertain what medical conditions member was under treatment for and what impact, if any, they might have had on his misconduct or his discharge. Applicant provided no supporting documentation for these contentions, thus the Board found his assertions without merit and could not substantiate an inequity or impropriety w ith regard t o these issues. L acking evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper and without basis for an upgrade.

Issue 4. Applicant infers he should not be penalized indefinitely due to the adverse nature of his discharge. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place and the negative impact it may have had on him. The Board noted applicant was the same age as the vast majority of members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct, and concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to his misconduct.

Ifhe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. lf he should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual
evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive r equirements of the d ischarge r egulation and w as w ithin t he d iscretion o f t he discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Inview 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