AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AIC

?! TESS
RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSf L

MEMBER SITTING

--- --------- --------- -------- --------- ----_,_ 	 _

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

SSUES

A92.21 A93.0l A92.0l

INDEX UMBER

A67. 10

l	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
DITIONAL E  HIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Apr 2004	FD-2003-00277

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

,-------------- ----·---·-------- -)

___ _/2___ .....__d.,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ ,.,, _ _ _,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
·	1

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
1535 COMJl.IAND 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

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

CASE   UMBER

FD-2003-00277

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Fort Gillem, Georgia, in April 2004, but failed to respond to formal notification of the hearing date and did not request a postponement.

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:

Issue I . Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, four Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct. His infractions included failure to maintain his dormitory room to standards, financial irresponsibility, failure to go, and misuse of his government travel card. Applicant contends he was young and immature. The DRB recognized the applicant was 23 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB further surmised that through the unit's many 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 and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2. 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 ofrecommendation and other accomplishments. However, they found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issues 3 and 4 apply to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.   However, this does not provide a basis of inequity or impropriety that justifies  and upgrade.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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