AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS ANI> OR ORGANlZA TION OFCOUNSEL
No
x

MEMBER  SITTING	HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

A67.90

1	ORDER APPOINT ING 1llEBOARD
2	APPLICATION fOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFlCATlON
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

H&ARINGl>A £

CAS& NUMB&R

03 Oct 2013	FD-2013-00517

Case heard in 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'srequest.

10:	rROM:
SAf/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST,SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW 80ARI>
IS35COMM.'ND DR, £E WING, 31.Ul FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-VZ)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00517	

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 and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for A Pattern of Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He states that he served his court martial sentence and the commander illegally punished him by recommending an administrative discharge after he returned to duty.  The records indicated the applicant was convicted and sentenced by a Special Court Martial for failure to go to duty on time (2x), drove on divers occasions while driving privileges were suspended for six months, failed to possess current personal injury and property damage liability insurance on POV, with intent to deceive signed a false statement, driving while intoxicated, drunk on duty and left the scene of an accident without making identity know.  Additionally, the applicant received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  This misconduct included received traffic tickets on three separate occasions and lost driving privileges for 30 days, involved in an altercation resulting in a	
broken index finger and provided vague incomplete information to supervisors, knowingly falsely represented self as not used or experimented with marijuana prior to enlistment when in fact used marijuana 9-10 times prior to enlistment and caught for speeding, 100 KPH in a 60 KPH zone, and cited for reckless driving.  IAW AFI 36-3208 administrative separation is not a disciplinary action or a form of punishment. Commanders and supervisors identify airman who shows likelihood for early separation.  They make reasonable efforts to help these airman meet Air Force standards.  Airmen who do not show a potential for further service should be discharged.   The applicant was discharged IAW 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  This includes conduct of a nature that tends to disrupt order, discipline, or morale within the military community.  After a complete and thorough review of the records the Board found the applicant's contention to have no merit.  The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with th procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of th discharge authority and 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 £
upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief