AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl.ZATION OFCOUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTIIER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.19
A93.01

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

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

HEARING DATE	CASENUMBER

19 Jun 2014	FD-2014-00002

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

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE rtRSONNIL COUNCJL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVl.tw .BOARD 1$.l5COMMAND DR, EE WING,3RD FLOOR
A".IDREWS AFB,MD lt7'l-7t01

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00002	

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

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.   In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted  by the Applicant.  The board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure applicant's discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, six Letters of Reprimand and three Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  His misconduct included failure to go to duty on time (2x), arrived at work with the smell of alcohol on person, reported to ADAPT appointment smelling of alcohol, took another airman's vehicle without permission, failed as wingman by allowing another airman who had been drinking to drive and had open container in vehicle and failed dorm inspection.

Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He believes the unacceptable behavior leading to his discharge was caused by the drinking age being lower at his overseas duty location.  He states that he was going through a lot due to the fact that he was in a different continent and it got the best of him.  The Board noted that in some of his replies to disciplinary action, even though member explained the reasoning for the misconduct, member agreed he had no excuse or placed blame on misunderstandings and stated it would not happen again.  He was not however motivated enough  to conform to standards and his misconduct continued.  The Board also noted that the ADAPT manager determined that the applicant was a program failure, that applicant's personal alcohol abuse problems and behaviors hindered his productivity.   While understandable that members experiencing personal problems may have additional stress, applicant submitted no documentary evidence of those problems, how they were
unique, or that he sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center, chain or command, or the Mental Health clinic.  The Board further noted that when applicant's misconduct occurred, member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards.  He was counseled in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies and had many opportunities to improve his behavior.  He failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts, so he was held accountable for his actions.  No inequity or
impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant also stated that he would like a chance to prove that he's been doing well but there was no evidence or documents submitted by applicant for the board to consider.

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