AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
·	NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
na•	1•1111

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
i        x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

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

14 Nov 2003

FD-2003-00412

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

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

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-2003-00412	

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

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, change ofreason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the appl icant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s. One for being disrespectful in language toward  a senior NCO and for willfully failing to go to the recycling center and return to his duty section without unnecessary delay. The second one was for failure to go and, with intent to defraud, wrote a bad check. Additionally, he received three Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling and three Memorandums for Record for failure to obey an order, sleeping on duty, disrespectful towards a superior NCO, failure to go, dereliction of duty, unprofessional attitude, poor work ethic, violation of dress and appearance standards, failure to comply with instructions, unauthorized use of a government computer, and financial irresponsibility. 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. The characterization  of the  discharge  received  by  the applicant was found to be appropriate. The applicant states that there were significant personal problems occurring in  his  life during this time frame, however, the applicant did know right from wrong. He also states that he  was  depressed  and had  a sleeping disorder.  The medical records do not show that he was treated for either problem.

Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. 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. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 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 DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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