AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE
	··

..

TYPE GEN
·   ·;

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA TlON

MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COU:.lSEL

,' '	'

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x

.	x
x

ISSUES

A67.10

INDEX NUMBER

A94.05

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICA T!ON FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSO'\'NEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

24 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00537

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--	---....----- ....----- ....----·....----- ...,_L). /Y.fr.6,,{),{}._ _(_ _ ...._ _•_ _ _ ....----- ....----- ....-----.·:.... -	-

TO:	FROM:
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 ANDRE\\-"S 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 NlJl\-fBER

FD-2003-00537

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 15s, and one Letter of Reprimand for failure to support his family, failure to go and wrongfully using his government credit card. 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. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The ORB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the
applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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