AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAi,)	GRADE

'."i;;:tl R.	:
YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS Al'"D OR ORGANlZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

··-----····-----····-----····----- - - ---·--------------

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

09 Apr 2004

FD-2003-00562

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..A....L.1Ll...l      ............,'-------	·

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 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-2003-00562	

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 does not contest the discharge; he merely states that it has been over six months since his discharge. The DRB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s and an AF Form 3545, all three for drinking under age. 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