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

AMN
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS A OR ORGANIZATJONbF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - -	-----------------j---+-----+----+-----+	1
x x x
x
x
A67.10	. ,,, , ;Y:,;Wr Jitfllll'J'§.l>Jl!	'll'rtii!!,!! lill:U l,'.rni: '

ISSUES

A02.17 A93.33 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFJCATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT TIM E OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDrNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

	FD-2004-00008

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------./      --------------------------------------------------------      .

TO:

SAF/M RBR
550 C STREET WEST. SU ITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMJl.tAND DR, EE Wlr\G, 3RD FLOOR Al'•H}RE\\'S AFB, r.m 20762- 7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition \vill be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NLIJ\18ER

FD-2004-00008	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He contends he received his second Article 15 for an administrative error, however, records indicate he lied to personnel in his chain about receiving approval for taking leave. Additionally, the records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s, four Letters of Reprimand, one Letter  of Counseling and two Memorandums for Record for misconduct. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had  ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.

Issue 2. Applicant states his counsel was ineffective and claims he was singled out for punishment. Without further evidence to the contrary, applicant was afforded the opportunity to meet with his lawyer and was provided counsel on his case. Review of his records indicates he received appropriate punishment for his actions, not his opinions. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons, which were the basis for this case. 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