AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

AlC

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

x

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x
ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A94.53	A67.90	1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
25 JULY 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00153

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

Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appea rance 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, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AlR 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  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00153	

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 avaiable pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS: Upgrade of di'scharge is denied.
The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and an Unfavorable Information File. His misconduct included failing to pay just debts, misuse of his government travel card, and failure to pay the balance of the resultant debt. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The Board noted member was given several opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was age 25 and 26 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

·'

·'
'