AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADJ.:

AFSN/SSAN

AMN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL  AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN17ATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF THE BOARD

llON	GI<:N	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x
x x x x

EXIiIBITS. SU)Jl\'111''.TED TO TRE BOA"RD
A94.05	A67.90	l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEl1'ER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

31 JUL 03

FD2003-0273	EASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Of
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISS!Jif AND TI1E  OAJ!R' DECISIONAi. RATIONAL ARE DlIJsS!!D,oNTHE A1"l'ACHED A!R'FaR<;;l;l PISCHARGE REVIEW BOAADD.ISIONAL RATIONALE;

REMARKS
Case hea rd 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.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 02077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NOMB£1{

FD03-0273	

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

lbe 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 contends that his discharge was too harsh because he never had  any  work  related problems. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for assault, a conviction by civilian authorities for assault, and two Letters of Reprimand for assault and failure to obey an order and making a false official statement. The applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other information contained in the records. 1bey found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive  aspects of the applicant's duty performance. 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

'1