NAME OF SERVICE M£MBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

Amn	AFSN/SSAN	
TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW	
L'iJt lllf !
YES	No
x	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANJZATION OF COUNSEL	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 	

.  MEMBER  SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

,   1	ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD

A93.01	A67.50	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
14 Aug 2003	FD-2003-00175

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 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, JRD 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-2003-00175	
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:

The applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.  The records indicate applicant received three Article 15s, four Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and two Records of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included loitering on post, failure to go on numerous occasions, missed appointments, late for work and failure to follow orders, failed dorm inspections, dereliction of duty, assault, driving while disqualified, speeding, and a civil arrest.  There is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or 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 r equirements o f t he d ischarge r egulation a nd w as w ithin t he d iscretion o f t he 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