AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSNISSAN
•11 111..
x	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
x
x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

AOl.43	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

19 Nov 2003

FD-2003-00305

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 STREE	EST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

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

FD2003-00305	

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 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. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Articles 15; his misconduct included misuse of his government travel card, and failing to pay the resultant debt. Member had three Enlisted Performance Reports, the last of which was rated an overall referral "3." It noted member's immaturity and bad judgment resulting in unacceptable off-duty behavior, imprudent financial decisions leading to personal and professional problems, and flagrant violations of directions and guidance. Member was also non-selected for reenlistment, again based on lack of maturity, less than acceptable adherence to Air Force standards, poor judgment and financial irresponsibility, and not possessing the traits desired of airmen or future noncommissioned officers. Member was age 21 when his misconduct occurred, the same age as other airmen who honorably complete their service without misconduct. There was no evidence he was immature, or didn't know right from wrong. The Board determined member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them.

Because member's discharge file was unavailable to the Board for review, the Board was unable to ascertain if there was other misconduct on member's part, or additional bases for the discharge. The Board also could not determine if member consulted counsel or submitted statements on his own behalf at the time of the discharge. When requested to provide any pertinent information he may have about the discharge file or his record of service, applicant failed to respond to the request. Lacking evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper and without basis for an upgrade. No inequity or impropriety could be found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

If he can provide additional documented information  to substantiate his issues, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If he should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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