AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME ()F SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZA TION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··

·----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----

HON	GEN
x

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.15 AOl.13 A93.0l A92.37

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

I	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
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	
13Jan  2004	FD-2003-00435

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.

--------------	--e>)__.L}_ _ _ /A./)__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

--1

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, JRD 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-2003-00435	
GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change his 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  of  reason  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  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify  a change of discharge.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant   . received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and an Unfavorable Information File for misconduct.  His offenses included displaying lewd videotapes in the dormitory, assaulting another airman, damaging government property, underage drinking, driving aggressively off base, and speeding on base.  At the time of the discharge, member requested to be retained and given the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant now contends the discharge was too harsh.  The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had the opportunity to change his negative behavior, which was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  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. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of applicant's misconduct offset any positive aspects of his duty performance.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons that were its basis.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's post-service activities and his desire to return to military service.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  And while the Board sympathizes with the impact his reenlistment code has had on applicant, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that justifies an upgrade.   The Board concluded applicant's term of service was appropriately characterized.

Issue 4.  Applicant infers that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young.
The DRB recognized the applicant was 19 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 as old as 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.

Ifhe can provide additional documented  information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe should choose to exercise this  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