r	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
I

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE l:\'ITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AB

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL A1'D OR ORGANJZA TION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZA TION OF COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOtt  Oli"THE-BOA'RD

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x x

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED T(j TJ;IE BOARD
A01.00;A95.00	A67.90	1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

18 Jul 03

FD2003-00246	COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBlvllTTED AT  TlME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE  RECORDING   OF PERSONAL  APPERANCE  HEARING APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND TIIE BOARD'S DECISIONAL-RATIONAL  ARE-IBSCUSSED ON THE AITACHED AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONALRATJONALE
REPr1ARKS
Case heard a t Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/withou t counsel, and the right to submit an applica tion to the AFBCMR.

DATE: 18 JUL 03

TO:

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, 3'"' 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 NU!'\-IRER

FD2003-00246	

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. The Board finds that the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the board was able to identify none.  The records indicated the applicant received a Special Courts Martial conviction without a punitive discharge, two Articles  15, three Letters of Reprimand, and four Letters of Counseling for misconduct. The misconduct incl uded willfully destroying U.S. government property, underage drinking, wrongfully possessing another military members identification card, communicating a threat, late for duty, dereliction of duty, failure to go, and possessing contraband while in correctional custody.  The ORB 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 charaeterization 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief