AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSl!:L

x x x
x

HEARING DATE
7 AUG 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003..0195

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

RKS
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.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0..2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3w FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0195	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge and to change the RE Code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of dh;charge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which wou.ld justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant does not contest his discharge, he states that he was young and immature and would like a second chance. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for driving while intoxicated and for drinking under age. Additionally, he received two Letters of Reprimand for underage drinking and for failing his room inspection, and two Letters of Counseling for a security violation and for using a racial slur. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older then the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the 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 procss.

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

,.,	I