AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
a:IP ·. JI 111111 111111

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN
d 'TJIJI

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
x x x x

ISSUES

A92.15
A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

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

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

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 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EEWING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD :W762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00468	

GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable	and 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 indicate the applicant received two Articles 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, four Letters of Reprimand, two Records of Individual Counseling, and had an Unfavorable Information File.  His misconduct included being late to  work on three occasions, a dress and appearance violation, financial irresponsibility, failure to obey an order, assault on his wife, and shoplifting.  Applicant does not dispute his misconduct but notes he had marital problems that adversely impacted his judgment  and performance. Applicant also notes his exemplary performance before his marriage.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They, however, found the seriousness of his misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  Additionally, while the Board recognized that applicant's marital problems might have had some bearing on his difficulties, these were not of sufficient mitigation to explain his misconduct.  Further, there is no evidence
he sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center, or the Life Skills Clinic to help him cope with his stress.  The DRB opined further that through the unit's 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 for the reasons that were the basis for discharge.

The applicant cited his desire to return to military service as justification  for upgrade.  While the Board was sympathetic to the impact a general discharge has on applicant's ability to return to service, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that warrants an upgrade.

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