AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE IN ITIAL)	GRADE

YES	No
x

AlC
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

1	--------------------

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

----- -  -  -----------------+------+----f-----+------+	1
x
x x x
x
..................... ... . ,---------------------t

ISSUES

A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATI ON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
r--3       +--L_E_T_T_ER_ _O_F_N_O_T_I_FI_C_A_T_IO_N	I
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

08 Sep 2004	FD-2004-00209

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.

 	c - - :::>. =-	-	.l		/(    ___L]_	_	_  _

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SU   E 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX	150-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 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-2004-00209	

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.

ISSUE: Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, four Letters of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct. His infractions included multiple incidents of failure to go, dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders, dress and appearance violations, and theft of long distance phone service from two other airmen. He also failed to complete his Career Development Course on time and was delinquent in his Deferred Payment Program account. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. Applicant apparently viewed his conduct as acceptable, but the DRB opined that through the unit's many administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change  his negative behavior and was unwilling to do so.  There was no evidence he didn't know right from wrong, and he was the same age as other airmen who successfully complete their enlistments without misconduct. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of applicant's discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis.

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