AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE  GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME Of'COUNSEL AND OR ORGANl7,ATI ON	ADDRESS Al D OR ORGAMZA TION OF COUNSEL
YFS	No
x
VOTE OFTBEBOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x
x x
x x
ISSUES	A94.SS	INOE'.X NUM.DER	A67.SO	EXHIBITS  SUBMITrED  TO THE  BOARD
1 ORDER APPOTNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUi SEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMI1TED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECOR.DING OF PERSONAL APP.EARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Jun 2015	F'D-2015-00096
APPLICANT'SISSUE AND 11f& BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCVSSED ON nu;ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAJlOER.EVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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.

(b) (6)

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 71812015
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 CSTREET WEST. SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND OR. EE IVINC. JRO FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS o\FB,MD 207617001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2015-00096	
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: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct

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 characterization 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 completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included one Article 15 and one Vacation of Non-Judicial punishment for assaulting an NCO by throwing a lit cigarette at his face; acting disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bringing discredit upon the armed forces and being drunk and disorderly.

The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable due to the harsh disciplinary response to three incidents during 2014.  He believes that had he not been stationed in Korea, he would have received a lesser punishment and may have been retained.  There is definitive evidence of the applicant 's alcohol-related misconduct.  Treatment which included counseling was provided by way of mandated participation in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program.  Medical as well as administrative documentation indicates suboptimal therapeutic benefit from the ADAPT Program as the applicant  continued to have other episodes of alcohol-related  misconduct in the midst of treatment.  In cases such as this, it is helpful if the applicant provides information such as emotional hardship, psychological  distress to explain his behavior that is contrary to the excellent performance reports.  The member did not provide any additional information at the time of his appeal.  The Board deliberations concluded that, in spite of an identified medical condition (Alcohol Dependence), the applicant must be held accountable for his actions. 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.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  After a thorough review of the record , the Board found no evidence to justify  an upgrade of the discharge characterization.
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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged .

Attachment: Examiner's Brief