AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

' NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER {LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

A·F·SN/SSAN ·

TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
'-------------------------------------

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x x

ISSUES

A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

08 Oct 2003

FD-2003-00294

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

/
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- .C.	- -...-..... .::'_-- --"--- - ---	- --- --- -----------------------<

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)

i ;,

Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE  FD2003-00294

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Articles 15, three Letters of Reprimand, and a verbal counseling. His misconduct included five incidents of failure to go, lying about his where-abouts, failing a scheduled dormitory room inspection, and writing a bad check. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. Member was age 19 when his misconduct occurred, all during a 9-month period. There is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong; he was essentially the same age as other airmen who adhere to the expected standards and are discharged honorably without any misconduct. The Board opined that through the unit's administrative actions, member had ample opportunity to correct his negative behavior, but he was either unable or unwilling to do so. After a through review of the records, the Board did not find any mitigation or extenuation to warrant an upgrade, and the records review disclosed no inequity or impropriety.

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