AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

·.   ••11. 1

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FlRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNJSSAN

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS Al'ID OR ORCil>NIZATION OFCOUNSEL

-

MEMBER SITTING
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.11
A93.'.23
A93.15

JNl)EX NUMJIE!t

A67.10

1		ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

TAPE RECORDl'NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

                              CASE NUMBER
13Apr 2004	FD-'.2002-0010

Case beard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

SECRETARY Of THE Alll FORa; ttRSONN£L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARCt llt:VIEW BOARD 195 COMMAND DR, EE Wl'NC,    iUIFt.OOR ANDJl.£WS AFB. MD 207'l-7I01

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2002-0010
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB)  at Dobbins AFB, Georgia, in November, 2002, but did not respond to formal notification of the hearing date and failed to appear without requesting a postponement. The applicant was again scheduled for a personal appearance before the DRB at Fort Gillem, Georgia, in April 2004, but again failed to respond to formal notification of the hearing date and did not request a postponement.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board  finds that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issue 1. Applicant contends he was singled out and disciplined due to his racial background and geographic upbringing.  The records indicated the applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions after receiving an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, two Letters of Reprimand, six Records of Individual Counseling and two Memoranda for Record documenting misconduct.  These documents were authored by seven different members of applicant's chain of command.  His infractions included numerous instances of failure to go, dereliction of duty, stealing, and failing to pay just debts.  Additionally, applicant had an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "2" that extensively documented his lack of maturity, poor judgment, inability to adapt to military life, and the negative effect he was having on his duty section.  At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement requesting retention and cross-training, or in the alternative, an honorable discharge.  The DRB was unable to find merit in applicant's claim of racial or cultural bias against him, and opined that through the unit's extensive administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issues 2 and 3. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the depression he suffered from as a result of his grandmother's, grandfather's, and aunt's death, all within a 1-year period. Applicant also inferred he was being treated for sleep disturbance, and noted he had been seen at the Mental Health clinic; he claimed his counselor didn't help him because the counselor also didn't understand his background, and that his first sergeant told him to "stick it out." However, applicant's service medical records were not available for review and no other inequity or impropriety in his discharge could be found in the course of reviewing the available records. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis and applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief