AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AMN

X   RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN
x x x x x

VOTE OF THE BOARD

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD

A95.00

A67. 10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
26 AUG 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2003-0259

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

TO:

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

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 26 AUG 03
FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD
1535 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-2003-00259	

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 available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS: Upgrade of Discharge is granted.
ISSUE: The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, however, after a thorough review of the record, the Board finds that the applicant's character of discharge and reason for discharge are inequitable. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully failing to maintain his dormitory room. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for failure to go. Additionally, he received two Letters of Reprimand for writing rude remarks and drawing certain parts of the anatomy and for failure to maintain his dormitory room in inspection order. The Board did not condone the misconduct and thought the good the member accomplished while in the service outweighed the bad.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of the applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief