. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AB
x	RECORD REVIEW

YES

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

-····-----····-----····-----····-----····----- r---------------
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

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

DENY
x x x x
x

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00486

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	'

··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··------'.11.- ----- ---'-- ··----- ·· -------------1

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I50-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1!135 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FWOR
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-2003-00486	

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 I Ss. The first one for being AWOL for 3 days, disobeying a lawful order, and dishonorably failing to pay his debt. The second Article 15 was for failure to go. He also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for being AWOL again. In addition, he received one Letter of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling, both for dereliction of duty. Applicant states that his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 87 months of service. This issue is unfounded based on the above incidents of misconduct. 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