TTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
					x	
					x	
					x	
					x	
					x	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SI

ISSUES	A93.23
A93.19 A92.21 A94.0S	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION	
		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'SRELEASE TO TI-IE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANC E	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	
HEARING DATl!

27 Feb 2014	CASE NlJMBER

FD-2013-00726			

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:

FROM:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCKARGE REVIEW BOARD 1$15COMMAND DR. EE WING,3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS At'B,MD 2076?-7001

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

CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2013-00726

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 believes he was harassed by his unit and written up for every possible infraction.  He states this caused him stress and anxiety, which led to him using alcohol to cope.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 1Ss, one Vacation, four Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling.  His misconduct included while being administered CDCs by NCO and superintendent had to stand to avoid falling asleep, unsafe and reckless driving, failed to obey order to complete several lessons, self-test questions, and URE in current CDC volume, failed to report on time to mandatory PT session, failed to obey lawful order from first sergeant to lock dorm kitchen and bathroom doors, failed to study first volume of CDCs, failed to go to duty on time, failed to obey lawful order from supervisor, failed to maintain valid vehicle insurance, failed to remain at scene of accident, driving on a suspended license, and controlled a vehicle while drunk.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.   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.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, no longer drinks alcohol, and is a contributing member of society.  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.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief