AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

Ct IllJI IE IBf.
TYPE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COVNSU

MEMBERS SITIING

x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
AOl.00	A67.90
1	
ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
1	
HEARING DATE
16 JUL 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00146

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIIE BOARD
ADDffiONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TWE OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARINCI

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.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREfil WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00146	

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 brief.

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 and eight Letters of Reprimand for misconduct.  The misconduct included disobeying a lawful order, sleeping on post on four separate occasions, failure to go, speeding, underage drinking and driving, making false official statements, failure to report to mandatory appointment, late for work, and sleeping in class. 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 hoard 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