,1-:-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

·g    111J l l W I Uf

ll l'RlllilI

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x x

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

A92.11	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

24 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00297

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

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

SECRETARY  OF IBE  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

FD2003-00297	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment code.

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 and change of reenlistment code are 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 the discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had four AETC Forms 173, "Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic Counseling and Comments," two Records of Individual Counseling, five Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15. His misconduct included technical training phase violations such as smoking in uniform and failing to come to class prepared, as well as failure to go, lying to a noncommissioned officer, and falsifying a government document. His Article 15 was for a 5-day absence without leave (AWOL) after which he returned himself to military control, writing a bad check, failing to pay his military star account, and soliciting two other airmen to make false statements. The Board noted that applicant had also he had four training progress check failures and objective failures, was put in the Commander's Student Enrichment Program, and was washed back several times for both medical and academic reasons. At the time of the discharge processing, member waived his right to consult counsel or to submit statements in his own behalf. Applicant now contends he had no other incidents of misconduct other than the one AWOL, and that he never intended to remain absent. The Board found no merit in this contention, noting member's numerous incident of misconduct over a 6-month period. Furthermore, his misconduct was very serious and not compatible with Air Force standards. The records indicate member was counseled repeatedly and given several opportunities to improve his behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so. The Board noted he was of the same age and maturity as most first-term airmen who abide by Air Force standards, and there was no evidence he did not know right from wrong. The Board could find no inequity or impropriety in the processing of his case, and therefore no justification to change his discharge.

Applicant cited his desire to return to military service. While the Board commends applicant on this aspiration, this is not relevant to the period of service under review and therefore, does not provide a basis for an upgrade.

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