AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE!EMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE

A B
x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

YES

I	No
lx

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7 o\.TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A66.00

INDEX NUMBER

A94.05

ORDER  APPOINTfNG  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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE   NUMBER

15 Mar 2004	FD-2003-00550

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------       --ll..11J:d..J.iJ..1.................,	,

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCJL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD JSJS COMMAND OR, EE W lNG, 3RD FLOOR Al'i"OREWS  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 NUl\IBER

FD-2003-00550	

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.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received one Special Court Martial conviction, two Article l 5s, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling for 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