AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME 01• SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, flRST MJDDI.E INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

AB

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR OR(;ANIZA TION

ADDRESS ANl> OR ORGANJ7,f\TION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF TRE JlOARD

HON	UOTUC	OTHER

OJJ:NY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A94.05

HEARING DATE
31 JUL 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67.10

CASE NIJMllt R
F02003-0229

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE 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 TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
A.PPLJCl\Nl:'S',J!isUE AND THE BOAIUYS'DEC.lSIONAL RATIONAL ARE DlSCUSSED.QN ttm ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD r;)EClSJONAl RATION;\LE.

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea rance 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

,    FROM:

DATE: 31JUL 03

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Ro 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

FD030229	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge and change the RE Code.

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 evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends that his discharge was too harsh because he was a good  worker  and  his behavior occurred off-duty. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15s, the first one for being AWOL and failure to pay his credit card payment. The second one for receiving a DWI.  In addition, he received a Vacation action for a previous offense under the UCMJ. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision  to  upgrade  the 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