AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN
•	ITT I I

x	RECORD  REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATJON OF COUNSEL

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AJllD OR ORGANIZATION

YES 	No
x

Upgrade Discharge

Deny
Deny Deny Deny
Deny

ISSUES

A94.05		
	INDEX NUMBER

A67.50	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
HEAlUNG DATE
12 Aug 2003	CASE NUMBER
FD-2003-00221		ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE	

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	

TO:

FROM:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW llOARD
153 COMMAND DR, EE WING,  RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 28762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0..2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

-

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00221	

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:  Upgrade of Discharge is denied.

ISSUE:  Applicant does not contest his discharge; he merely states that he made one mistake by getting a less than Honorable discharge from the Air Force. He also states that he wished that he had a say so in court for the allegations that were brought against him. The record indicates the applicant received two Article l Ss for stealing three music compact discs, wrongfully possessing a military identification card, failure to go and for damaging a wall. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for failure to go. The member had the opportunity to present his case before a court, however, he accepted the Article 1Ss in lieu of a court. 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. 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