AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

··1•maHt•MI•

I.

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE AB

l!ill

AFSN/SSAN
smr1 •·

TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.JO

x x x
x

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
23 Sep 2003	FD-2003-00249

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
JS3S 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 NUMBER

FD-2003-00249	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.

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.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully disobeying an order and an Article 15 for willfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal age of 21. The applicant stated that he refused to take the Anthrax vaccination. He also states that he had exemplary performance while enlisted. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. 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 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