AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

' NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

t•1	...-.
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING
'--------------------------------

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

'	x
x x x
x
'---------------------------------

ISSUES

A92.l5

INDEX NUMBER

A67.l0

A93.07	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
3	
HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
19 Nov 2003	FD-2003-00396

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 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

'-----------------------------------	----	---------------	fl_ _ .1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET	ST, 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

FD'.WOJ-00396	

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 Letters of Counseling, two Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15. His misconduct included multiple instances of failure to go, a dress and appearance violation, and failure to obey an order, all within a 6-month period. Additionally, member failed his Career Development End of Course exam and told his training section he would intentionally fail it a second time so he could receive an honorable discharge in order to go to work for the Michigan State Police. Rather than failing the test a second time, he simply did not go to the test, thus receiving his Article 15 for failure to go. At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf stating he accepted the discharge but requested his service be characterized as honorable in view of his having participated in four temporary duty deployments, including two to Saudi Arabia, within 3 years. Applicant now states his failures to go were related to his daughter being in a neo-natal intensive care unit in a civilian hospital. The records disclosed applicant's daughter was born February 9, 2001; all but his final incident of misconduct occurred before her birth. The final incident was that referenced above wherein he failed to go to his test. Thus the Board found this issue without merit. The record clearly documents a pattern of recurring misconduct. The Discharge Review Board concluded member was responsible for those actions and was properly held accountable for them. He was age 21 at the time, 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 and given several opportunities to conform his behavior but failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. No inequity or impropriety was 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