AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
111	anrrn•1111	AB	II	II2 (!
TYPE GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

A93.01

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A67.to

HON
x

x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

x
x

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LEITER  OFNOTIFICATION
BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
AL EXHIBITS SUBMlTI'ED AT TIME OF AL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

Case heard at Randolph AFB, TX.

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

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SJi:CRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DJSCJTAll.CE REVIEWBOARD 1!133 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762".70Cl:I

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00343-A	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable,  change of reason for discharge, and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Randolph AFB on December 8, 2003.  The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5: Applicant's contentions.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:   Upgrade   of  discharge  to  Honorable,   change  of  reason   for  discharge,   and   change   of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code is denied.

The Board  finds that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor that provided  by the  applicant  substantiates  an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because "it was too harsh''.   The information provided by the applicant and contained in his records was carefully reviewed by the DRB.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles  15, and one Letter of Reprimand.   The misconduct included absent without leave, failure to report, stealing mail from a military post office, and communicating a threat. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The applicant also contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 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 Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from  conduct expected of all military members.   The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concJudes 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief