'r--	-A__R_F_O_R_CE_D__s_c_H_A_R_G_E R_E_V__E_W BO__A-R-D,-H-_EA__R_NG_R_E_C_ORD ----.-	--1

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
11Mlllllll ' IIt
TYPE	PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

A l C
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

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

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x x
x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

A94. 11 A02.03

A67. 10	2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE  BOARD

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

09 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00169

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

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 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

FD-2003-00169	
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 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 two Articles 15, a Letter of Reprimand, two Records of Individual Counseling and an Unfavorable Information File for misconduct. The misconduct included several instances of dereliction of duty, and three instances of disobeying lawful orders. He also had an Enlisted Performance Report that was rated an overall referral "2" which noted his lack of initiative, and repeated problems with project completion. Applicant contends his new First Sergeant was making an example of him to prove to the unit that he (the First Sergeant) "meant business," and that the First Sergeant lied in order to effect the discharge. The records review disclosed no documents supporting this contention, nor did applicant submit any evidence of such other than his personal assertions. In the absence of such evidence, the Board finds this issue without merit. The DRB opined that through the unit's 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, and therefore the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

NOTE: During its review, the Board discovered the applicant may have been entitled to an administrative discharge board (ADB), as his total service (inactive during the delayed enlistment and active) appeared to have exceeded 6 years. There was no indication in the record that he was provided an opportunity to contest his discharge at an ADB. Additionally, the Board noted that at the time of the discharge, after consulting with legal counsel, member waived his right to submit statements on his own behalf, and requested his discharge be processed "with due diligence." The Board, in denying applicant's appeal, determined that, based on the available evidence, if applicant  had requested an ADB, it would likely have upheld the commander's recommendation to discharge the applicant with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Thus, the Board concluded the failure to offer him this opportunity was a harmless error.

In summary, the Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.

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