AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FJRST MJDDLE INITJAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

 	 	

TYPE

YES	No
x

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*

ISSUES

A92.15

INDEX NUMBER

x x
A67.90

A94.05	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-2003-00319

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

*Change reason and Authority to Scretarial Authority.

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 WES	UITE 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

FD-2003-00319	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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 1.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, seven Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, one Record of Individual Counseling, had an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the Control Roster.  His misconduct included multiple instances of being late to work, failed dormitory room inspections, financial irresponsibility, and dereliction of duty.  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.  Therefore, the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant infers that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service his final year.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  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 that were the basis for this case.

Issue 3.  Applicant asserts that many service-members received honorable separations after serving only 3 years of a 4-year contract because of downsizing in the military.  He infers that because he was discharged with 3 years and 1 month service, he should have received an honorable discharge.  Applicant failed to submit any evidence to support this assertion, and the Board was not aware of any such evidence, so therefore found this contention without merit.

Ifapplicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issues, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe 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