AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION 01" COUNSEJ,

x x x
x
x

A93.21, A93.13, A94.11,
I  AOl.13

HEARING DATE
14 AUGUST 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67. 10

CASENUM8ER
FD2003...00214

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

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision or 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 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

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

CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00214

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 minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, three Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, and six Records of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included three missed appointments, insubordination toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO), two instances of reckless driving, three incidents of disrespect toward an NCO, disrespect toward a civilian employee, sleeping on duty, failure to perfonn assigned duties, dress and appearance violations, misuse of a government vehicle, twice late for work, and twice failure to go.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable for various reasons.  Those include a medical problem with his foot that prevented his utilization in the aircraft maintenance career field, boredom in the alternative position he was put in, a perception of being singled out due to different religious and moral beliefs, and false accusations being
brought against him. The Board noted that nine different people of various ranks had signed the array of
disciplinary documents given to member. The Board could not find any merit in applicant's contentions of bias or false accusations against him. Although the Board noted the medical records included entries for applicant's foot problems, the record failed to disclose and causal connection between this medical problem and applicant's misconduct. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, 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