AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

Mr. Mi.ke Jaeger, Texas Veterans Commission

' . ·-	. - -  .	-	-	- - - - · ·-	--- ----·

...:

-	-      ·· .."',
:oe  J,

MEMBER SfITING

HON	OEN	UOIBC	OIBER

DENY

X*+ X*+ X*+
X*+ X*+

HEARING DATE	

11Sep 2013	FD-2013-00284

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

A94.S3

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FD.E
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.
*RE Code
+Narrative Reason

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

SECRETARY ornu:AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1$15COMMAND DR, EE WJNC, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWSAFB, MD 20761-7001

AFHQ FORM 0:.2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00284	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland, and Randolph AFB, Texas, on 11 Sep 2013.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit # 5: Applicant's Contentions

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for the discharge and change of reenlistment code.

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 received a General discharge for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

The applicant's contentions were unclear, but he appealed for an upgrade based upon inequity.  The records indicate applicant received an Article 15 and four Letters of Reprimand for misconduct. Acts of misconduct cited in the record included leaving an accountable composite tool kit asset out on the flight line; failure to pass a dorm room inspection; citation for driving with expired liability insurance; indecent gestures towards a Japanese national; and engaging in sexual activity with a civilian, not his wife. The DRB questioned why the applicant felt his discharge was inequitable, and he was unsure. He did state he was under stress related to a divorce and relationship problems. He admitted his sexual misconduct towards a Japanese national in a local store was offensive in nature and could have negatively impacted relations between the host nation and the United States. During the conclusion phase of the Board, it became apparent that the applicant had not had access to his mental health records. The Board faxed a copy of the records from AHLTA, the Air Force medical records system. Afterwards, the applicant responded in writing and contended he should have received a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) because his mental state was documented "not worldwide qualified." The Board found his  contention unsubstantiated. According to AFI 48-123, Adjustment Disorder, the diagnosis in his records, renders an individual unsuited for duty rather than unfit, and as such, is subject to administrative discharge. An MEB, therefore, was not appropriate or required in his case. The DRB opined that through the administrative actions taken, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the seriousness of the applicant's willful misconduct outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review  Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive  requirements of the discharge regulation, 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, change of narrative reason for discharge or reenlistment code, and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief