., •.

.NAM.E.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
OF SERVICE MEM•BE.R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE L'lllTIAL)

AFSN/SSAN

.,	,,

GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA TJON

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

x x x x

	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
HEARING  DATE
19 Nov 2003	CASE NUMBER
FD-2003-00351		ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	

A67.10

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND  DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF.V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00351	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for his discharge.

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 reason and authority for the discharge 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 discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for both minor disciplinary infractions and unsatisfactory performance. He had eight Records of Individual Counseling, one Letter of Reprimand, a traffic ticket, and three Memos for Record documenting misconduct. In addition to twice failing his Career Development Course End-of­ Course examination, his misconduct included multiple instances of failure to go, financial irresponsibility, and dereliction of duty over a 12-month period. There were also indications from his tech school training assessment that he had difficulties there. At the time of the discharge, applicant waived his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. Applicant feels his discharge was based on one isolated incident, but the record clearly shows this issue to be without merit. Additionally, applicant feels the basis for his discharge should be solely his unsatisfactory performance. Again, the record clearly documents a pattern of continuing misconduct, thus rendering this issue also without merit. The Discharge Review Board noted that member was responsible for his actions of misconduct and was properly held accountable for those. He was age 20 to 22 while in the military, essentially the same age as other first term airmen who adhere to the expected standards of conduct. There was no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. He was counseled repeatedly and given numerous opportunities to conform his behavior but failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. With regard to the unsatisfactory performance, he was given numerous opportunities to improve and make satisfactory progress, but failed to do so. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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