AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSl:L AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

llEARIJllG DATE
1AUG 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00170

3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

ARKS
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 DlSCHARGE 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

FD2003-00170	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a persona] appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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 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.

Issue. The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service records. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. Member received two Articles 15, one Letter of Reprimand, and four Records of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included failure to meet scheduled appointments, failure  to  perform  at expected standards, reporting late to work and smelling of alcohol, driving while drunk, and failure to obey an order not to drive. The Board noted member was age 18 when his misconduct occurred, essentially the same age as other airmen who complete their enlistments without disciplinary infractions, and there was no evidence he did not know right from wrong.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative/repetitive behavior. The Board concluded the disciplinary infractions were  a significant departure from the 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.

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