AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

TYPE

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AMN

X  RECOlU) REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AN   OR 0RGANl7..ATION OF COUNS.EL

MEMBERS  SJTTING	OTHER
x x x x x
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A93.01	A67.90

HEARING DATE
25 Jul 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003--00147

ING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3w 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

FD2003-00147		

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason for discharge, and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

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 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.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  He had four Letters of Reprimand, one Article 15, a civilian traffic ticket, and an arrest by civilian authorities. His misconduct included failure to report, late for an appointment, failure to complete his Career Development Course in a timely manner, financial irresponsibility, arrest by civilian authorities for failure to appear in court and disorderly conduct. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The Board recognized the applicant was 19 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. They noted that the applicant was the same age as airmen who had adhered to the standards when his misconduct occurred. The applicant also stated that the Board should take into account his post-service activities. The Board was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well in the civilian community.  However,  no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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