AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDR.ESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

ISSUES	A93.19

MEMBER SIITING

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A94.05 A93.21

1  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 TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEAIUNG DATE	CASE NUMBER
IO Jan 2014	FD-2013-00646

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' s request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 CSTREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB,TX 78150-4742

SECRt'.TARY Of'11tE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
I   COMMAN D DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD 20762-71181

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00646	

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 Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He states he was diagnosed with a back problem and an alcohol problem, but never received treatment.   The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15 and one Letter of Reprimand.  His misconduct included driving while intoxicated and found drunk while on duty as an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment and Prevention (ADAPT) Program patient.  Although the applicant's medical records were unavailable to the board, the applicant's Article  15 clearly shows the applicant was receiving treatment for his alcohol problem through the ADAPT program.
Additionally, the applicant was medically cleared for discharge on 26 March 2012.	The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION: 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief