AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R EVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE l\U:MBER (LAST, f'IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	•  AFSN/SSAN

 	AB 	

:   YES	NO
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  Ot' COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

VOTE OF TllE BOARD

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

INDEX NUMBER

EXillBITS SUBMITTED T() THE BOARD.

A67.50	J	OR DER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLlCA TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETI'ER  OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
30 JUL 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0235

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE· COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIDITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAl'E RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISStm'	11lEBOARD'S DECISIONAL RllTIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ONTHEt;TIACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW l!OARIYDECJSIONAL RAll()':'ALE

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

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

SAF/MJBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
l 535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used,

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0235	

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

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge. He states that the things he did wrong had to do with personal issues. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15s, one for failure to go and the other one for using his govennnent travel card for other than official government travel. In addition, he received a Vacation action of a suspended action under  the UCMJ for failure to go; one Letter of Reprimand for lying to a commissioned officer and to the chain of command; two Letters of Admonishment for fleeing the scene of an altercation and for financial irresponsibility; and three Letters of Counseling for exceeding the authorization for alcohol purchases, financial irresponsibility and for failure to go. 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. 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