AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FJRST MlDDL.E INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AIC	0111111
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANll.ATION

NONE

MEMBERS SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

INDEX NUMBER
A94.53	A67. 10

x x x x
'.
1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
14 AUGUST 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00213

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDmONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and 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
RANOOLPH 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

FD-2003-00213	

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:  Upg!ooe 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 recor the Board was unable to identify any.
•
Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant
received three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, a verbal counseling, two Articles 15 and a vacation of suspended punishment, all but one for failure to go or being late to work. In a 10-month period, member failed to go or was late at least eight times. The medical records revealed he had been seen at the clinic for sleep problems and prescribed medication that apparently offered some relief. It also noted that member normally worked from 2300 to 0700 hours, but had a different sleep pattern on his days off. As a result the medical staff advised him to maintain the same sleep patterns 7 days per week. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken by the unit, combined with the advice of the medical staff, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unable or unwilling to do so. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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