AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	X

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

YES	No
x

.  NA1>1E OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZATION

ADDRl:SS AND OR OllGAJ'OZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

uornc	OTIIER	DENY
x x x x x

ISSUl:S

A94.11 A94.0S

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING 11iE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION  .
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITI	lT	TTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBI.11

14 Apr 2004

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET	ST   UITE 40
RAl-il)()LPH AFB,

SEClllTAJl.Y Oil THE.AIR flORCE Plli'.RSONNIU COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARG.l llE\IU:W BOARD
lUSCOMM.\NDD.R,J:EWl!'IG,3.llJ) ft,0011
ANDltl.WS An, M1) 21116:t-1fl02

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition wm be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2002-0091	

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 fomml 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.  Applicant contends he was singled out, disciplined and discharged due to personality conflicts with  his chain of command.  The records indicated the applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions after an earlier suspended discharge with probation and rehabilitation was vacated due to additional misconduct.  The original basis for the suspended discharge was no longer in the record and therefore unavailable for review.  However the basis for vacating the suspended discharge was member's co­  habitation with a woman not his wife, allowing the woman to reside in his on-base quarters contrary to base housing regulations, and receiving variable housing allowance he wasn't entitled to.  The record further reflected that member had received two Articles 15 for misconduct that consisted of assault, being drunk and disorderly, and making a false official statement.  Additionally, applicant's last two Enlisted Performance Reports were rated an overall referral "3" and referral "2" and documented his poor off-duty conduct.  At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement explaining the mitigating and extenuating circumstances of each new offense of which he was accused, and requesting his period of probation and rehabilitation be allowed to continue.  The DRB was unable to find merit in applicant's claims of unfair 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.

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	

'