A.IL.. ... ...,,......._,._,, LO,....._,Ji.11.4 .._..._..,,,... &-- .,.,..,._. •• --- ,............ ..,._......._,._...-..,. '.._.. --------
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INffiAL)	AFSN/SSAN

YES	Ne
x

MEMBER SITTING

- 	

lSSUES

A92.37
A93.2l

INDEX NUMBER	A67.50

··--··--1

1+-2RDER APPOINJ1NG TH_E BO _IJ_·· -- - -- - · ·
2  :  APPLICAIION FOR REVIEW OF.DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	•
4.	llRlEF OF PERSONNEi. F!LE	.  ··--·_ 1
COUNSEl: S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	j
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.

SAFIMRBR
SSQ C STREET WE	,  UITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 7815-0-1742

-SEOU:TARY OF THE AIR ro-.a PERSO!'ONEL COUNCii,
Allit roan DISCHARGE JU;VI!W BOARD
l!!'l!l COMMAND DR. fi WING, .!RD f'U>OR Al\l>ltE.WS AFB, MD 16762-"001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, .JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00271	

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

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

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. He had an Article 15 and a vacation of suspended punishment; his misconduct included misuse of his government travel card, failing to pay the resultant debt, dereliction of duty, and making a false official statement. Member had three Enlisted Performance Reports, the last two of which were referrals. They noted member's sporadic duty performance requiring close supervision, lack of initiative, failure to timely or accurately complete tasks resulting in the necessity to be reaccomplished, or in customer dissatisfaction or financial hardship. Applicant now contends he was diagnosed with a medical condition after his separation (hypothyroidism) that was present while he was in service and that negatively affected his decision-making and performance. Unfortunately neither member's medical records or the discharge processing files were available to the Board for review due to being missing from the record.  Because member's discharge file was unavailable
to the Board for review, the Board was unable to ascertain if there was other misconduct on member's part,
or additional bases for the discharge. The Board also could not determine if member consulted counsel or submitted statements on his O\vn behalf at the time of the discharge. Member  was also entitled to an administrative discharge board but it was unclear whether he met such a board or waived that right. When requested to provide any pertinent information he may have about the discharge file or his record of service, applicant stated he had no records to provide. Lacking documented evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper and without basis for an upgrade. No inequity or impropriety could be found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Additionally, the Board noted member was age 26 when his misconduct occurred, the same age as other airmen who honorably complete their service without misconduct. There was no evidence he was immature, or didn't know right from wrong. The Board determined member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them, and further opined that even had member been diagnosed with hypothyroidism while in the service, that would not have caused all of his misconduct or mitigated it.

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