AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RE VIEW HUAKIJ Ht;AKINu KEl..:UKU

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE

AIC
x

AFSNISSA N

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COU'.'fSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS A ND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

-- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - ------	- .,1_N_G	+-_H_O_N_-+	GE_N_'_+-_u_o_TH_c_ -+_o_T_H_ER_ ---j	DE__NY	I
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

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 APP ERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

12 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00458

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:·,
''
''

----------!

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I 50-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AJR 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 \Vill be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\1BER

FD-2003-00458	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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 is denied.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received two Article l5s, the first for failure to go and the second one for failure to go and for failure to obey a lawful order.  He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for being derelict in the performance of his sJ.uties. Additionally, he received four Letters of Reprimand for drinking under age on numerous occasions, failure to go, being late for duty and for reckless driving. 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.

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