AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FJRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

-	FSU lll l-

X  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZAHON

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

A94.05,   A93.0l,A92.21	A67.10	1	ORDER APPOTNTJ NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
310CT 02

CASF- NUMBER
FD2002-0180

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXH!BlTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case hea rd at Andrews AFB, MD

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

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0180	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (Board) with counsel at Andrews AFB,
MD on October 31, 2002.

The following additional exhibits were submi .I	I-	-	ng:
Exhibit 6: Letter of recommendation  from	dated  17 October, 2002.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

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

ISSUES:  The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and he was immature.  He further contends that his post service conduct is reflective of his true character and ability to serve.  The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions after 10 months of service.  The member had four AETC Form 341 's (records of counseling for minor infractions while in training), five letters of reprimand, and one article 15 for violating phase restrictions on three occasions (included  breaking curfew, unauthorized travel off base, unauthorized consumption of alcohol), driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, making a false police report, late for details, late for physical conditioning training, failing room and locker inspections, use of profanity, and failure to perform CQ inventory.  The majority (8 of 10) of the applicant's misconduct occurred over a period of one month (October 2001).
During testimony, the applicant revealed that his abuse of alcohol contributed to his pattern of misconduct and accepted full responsibility for his actions.  From the records and medical records, there was no evidence that referral for alcohol intervention would have been indicated.  The applicant's blood alcohol
l imit for the DUI noted above was reportedly below the legal limit and the applicant was oflegal drinking age.  The applicant had ample opportunity to correct the recurring misconduct that was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The DRB was impressed with the applicant's honesty, remorse, and acceptance of responsibility for his behavior.  His recognition that alcohol abuse contributed to his difficulties and his reported abstinence since discharge were also noted and reflect a significantly positive change in his character.  The applicant requested a second chance to serve based on
the change in his character since discharge however, the DRB fmmd no evidence of impropriety or inequity that would warrant an upgrade.

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