AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN
11a111 11n1.

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x

ISSUES

A94.53 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

x x x
x

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 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

10 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00481

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.

,	·	-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, 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-2003-0048 1	

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.

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 conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, two Records of Individual Counseling, one Memorandum for Record, had an unfavorable Information File, and had been placed on the Control Roster for misconduct. His infractions were all for being late to work or financial irresponsibility, with one for dereliction of duty.  Applicant infers his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh, and that he should not be penalized indefinitely for his mistakes. The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 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, and that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was either
unwilling or unable to do so. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and 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