AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAMI<:OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AB

YKS	NO
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF THE BOARD

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DKNY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A94.05

HEARING DATE
18 Jul 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-00216

EXHIBITS S.IJl'll\II	TO TffE BOARD
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 TJME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE .ANJ:> THE BOARD'S D!!l!i;lSIONAL RATION,?E DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED A:{RF!)RCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RAT.l All!.

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea ra nce with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

		
	DATE: 18 JUL 03	
	
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	CASE NlJMBER

FD2003-00216	

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

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 discharge is denied.

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

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

ISSUE. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because "it was  too  harsh".  The  information provided by the applicant and contained in his records was carefully reviewed by the DRB. The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, six Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, and two Memorandums for Record for misconduct. The misconduct included financial irresponsibility, late for duty, lying, failure to go, failure to inform supervisor of illness, drinking underage, absent from assigned quarters while placed on quarters, unprofessional behavior, and failure to check mailbox daily. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to  change  his negative behavior. The Board concluded the unexcused absences and misconduct outweighed the otherwise satisfactory performance of this member.

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, thus the applicantts discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief