2

3

IEITER OF NOTIFICATION

4

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

COUNSEL'SRELEASETO nmBOARD

x
x
x
x

A94.0S, A92.37' A93.19 -

1 ORDER APPOINTING
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

Hl.AIUNGDAT£
02-05-31

CASENtJMBEll
FD2002..0021

AOOITIONALIDCHIBITS SUBMIITIID AT TlMB OF
PERSONAL

TAPE RECORDING OFPERSONAL APl'BRANCE HBARJNG

Case h ard at Washlngton, D.C
Advise applicant o( the decision of the Board, and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

l

··-

SAFIMfB

SSO C STREET WESE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00

I
(EF-V2)

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD	 	
l 535COMMANO DR, EE WING, 31U> FlOOR

....

ANDREWS AFB.MD 20J62-7pQ_2_
.	"   -'- :	.,_

Previous edition will be used.

 	 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.
The attached brief	available pertinent data on theapplicant and the factors	discharge.
@@?DINGS:	Upg	scharge is denied.	
-	-
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would	a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had three Articles 15, and a vacation of suspended	misconduct included dereliction of duty, false official statement, two instances of driving drunk on base, eluding police while driving at an excessive and reckless speed which resulted in a motor vehicle accident, and vehicular assault against a security police officer in the execution of her duties. At the time of the discharge, applicant waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. Applicant now infers his discharge was too harsh because he was discharged shortly completing in-patient alcohol rehabilitation. The Board noted that member was entered into the alcohol rehabilitation program after his first drunk driving incident and
completed the program. His base driving privileges were also revoked at that time. More than a year after completing the rehabilitation program, he had his second drunk driving incident.  This incident included driving on revocation, eluding police attempting to stop and arrest him, vehicular assault against a different attempting to stop him, and a motor vehicle accident. At that time, his chain of command decided to recommend discharge, but to also send him to in-patient rehabilitation as a measure toward helping him transition to civilian life.  He was advised before he went to the in-patient program that he would be administratively discharged		the military after completion.	Although applicant completed the in- patient program, his medical records indicate he was unwilling to take responsibility for his actions and to make a plan for his	life.   It is Air Force policy that personnel who do not respond favorably to rehabilitation be considered for separation.  The applicant's additional misconduct was of a very serious nature and members who commit acts of misconduct, even under the influence of alcohol, are held accountable for their actions. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of
the records review.

CONCLUSIONS:         Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was	with the procedural and	requirements of the discharge regulation and was within		of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided      administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board	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