AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

...•.•.._

MEMBER SITTING
,

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A92.35 A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A47.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSON'NEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

23 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00192

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

TO:	FROM:
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

FD2003-00192	

...
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 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.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, and two Letters of Reprimand. His misconduct  included  several instances of failure to pay just debts, writing bad checks, and being incapacitated for duty through  prior over-indulgence of intoxicating liquor. These multiple infractions occurred over a 20-month period. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement requesting he be given an honorable discharge. He also submitted  six character  statements.  Applicant  now contends his discharge was based on one isolated incident, and notes that after separation he paid off his debts. The Board noted member had had at least four separate opportunities to improve his behavior, and he was age 22 to 24 when his offenses occurred, the same age as other airmen who adhere to standards. He was counseled repeatedly	
in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies.  In spite of those rehabilitative efforts, he was unwilling or
unable to improve his behavior. The Board concluded applicant knew right from wrong and  was responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant cited his post-service conduct  and good citizenship since discharge.  However, this evidence is not relevant to the period of service under review and therefore, does not provide a basis for an upgrade. Although applicant has matured and his conduct may have improved, this alone is insufficient to overcome the factors that were the basis for 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