AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

YES	Nn
x

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

GEN

UOTHC
x x x
x
x

lssuEs

A90.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

l	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  !ME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATl':	CASE NUMBER

10 Mar 2005	FD-2004-00424

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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TUE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
15)5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-700?

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00424

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

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.

ISSUES:

Issue I. The applicant received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The records reflect member received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and four Records of Individual Counseling. The misconduct included insubordination, failure to report, failure to go, missed appointments, failure to obey a lawful order, reporting to work in the wrong uniform, late for duty, disobedience, and making a false official statement. The applicant contends that he was offered an early release and was not notified of the type of discharge he received or the repercussions of the discharge. The records show that the applicant was served with a discharge notification memorandum dated 7 November 1997. The applicant signed the memorandum acknowledging that the action against him may result in a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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