AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AB

•lllll!litJS

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

x
x
x x

ISSUES	A95.00	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	
		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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE	
HEARING DATE

06 Dec 2003	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00207		

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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 AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AJR 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

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2003-00207

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) in San Antonio, Texas, but failed to appear. The DRB considered the applicant's request based on a review of his record.

The attached brief coIJ#ains 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 that would justify a change of discharge.
.,	.,
ISSUE:

The applicant submitted no specific issues other than to state the he agrees his conduct while on active duty was not acceptable and that he would like another chance to serve in the military. The record indicates that the applicant served on active duty for 1 year and 6 months during which time he received nonjudicial punishment for making a false official statement and dereliction of duty, 7 letters of reprimand for various types of misconduct (including an arrest by civil authorities for public intoxication), 4 records of individual counseling, and a memo for record for counseling related to financial irresponsibility. 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. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his repetitive negative behavior.

The Board concluded the applicant's multiple 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