..	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
IIll1111 Im II	AB

1rn11 r••

._	,NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW

.•.. :.\;J;lIJ§J!Jl :::'.'; NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

' , VOTEOF1JIE   {);\Jill

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
1	
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
1	
A93.01

A67.90
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	ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

21 Aug 2003	FD-2003-00275

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

s	I

TO:

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

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-2003-00275	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for the discharge, and to change the RE code.

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 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 two Article 15s, the first one for discharging a fire extinguisher causing the automatic fire alarm to activate. The second one for consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of twenty-one and for damaging government property. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for failure to obey an order and for willfully failing to refrain from entering an establishment with false identification with the purpose of consuming alcoholic beverages. The applicant states that he has matured as well as learned from his mistakes. However, he submits no documentation to this fact and he has only been out of the Air Force for one year and four months. The DRB 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