AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE M E\'IRF.R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIA L)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

:  -1AI U.BI
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANlZA TION	ADDRE;:;s AND OR ORGA".'lllZATION OF CQUNSEL

x x x x

ISS!IES
A94.53, A67.09, A93.09, A92.37

INDF.X NUMBER
A67.90

HEARING DATE
02-06-19

C\SE'l!:il'IBER
FD2002-0039

LETfER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXH!BlTS SUBMJTTED AT  TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the rightto a personal  appea rancewithfwithout  counsel, and the right to submit an  application to the AF BCM R

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 R:\NOOLPI I AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OFTllE AIR ¥ORCE PERSONN EL COIJNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD l 535 CO\l:\'L\.\D DR, EE WING, 3m FLOOR ANDRE\VS A FB, MU 20762-7002

A FHQ FORM 0-2077, J/\N 00	·)	Previous edition will be used.

IAIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	I
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had two Articles 15, and a vacation of suspended punishment. He also had two Letters of Counseling and a Letter of Reprimand. His misconduct included missing an appointment, failure to pay just debts, driving while intoxicated off base resulting a major motor vehicle accident, violating a direct order by driving on base while his driving privileges were revoked for a year, leaving his place of duty, and failing to go to his place of duty. At the time of the discharge, applicant waived his right to consult counsel or submit a statement on his own behalf. Applicant now states he knows what he did was wrong and he regrets it, noting that he resented authority and was not happy with his job. The Board noted that member’s first infraction was his DWI, after which he underwent alcohol rehabilitation and was deemed a problem drinker. His base driving privileges were also revoked at that time. More than 8 months after that incident, his other misconduct began and he had five infractions in a 4-month period. The applicant’s continued misconduct was of a serious nature and was intolerable. Members who continue to commit such acts are held accountable for their behavior. There is no evidence of record that applicant didn’t know right from wrong or was immature. Furthermore, he was of the same age as the majority of first-term airmen who properly adhere to Air Force standards of conduct. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

While the Board commends applicant’s post-service accomplishments and recognizes that he may have matured since his discharge and now desires to again serve in the military, this information is not relevant to the period of service under review and therefore does not provide a basis for upgrade. This is insufficient grounds to overcome the factors that were the basis for the discharge.

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    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