AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL ANJ> OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ<\ TION OF COUNSEL

x x x

INDEX NUMB!ll
A94.05, A92.21, A93.ll	A67.90

I ORDER APPOINTING TIJE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
2	

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

03-01-08

FD2002-0216	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIJE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXlilBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APl'ERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an app1ication to the AFBCMR.

SAFJM   R
SSO C S	WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

·AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2}

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCJL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3m FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0216	
GENERAL: The appHcant 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 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 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 discip1ine. He had three Letters of Reprimand (LOR), a Letter of Counseling, an Article 15, and a referral Enlisted Performance Report rated an overaU "3." His misconduct included at )east 41 instances of failure to go to his mandatory fitness improvement sessions over a 6-month period of time, and failure to obey a lawful order to do so. The Board noted that when his misconduct occurred, member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards, and in spite of the unit's efforts to help member correct his deficiencies, he was not motivated enough to conform to standards and his misconduct continued. The Board also noted member was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed conduct and emotion and mild life stressors, and had been evaluated for alcohol abuse, although no diagnosis was rendered. He also self-referred to anger management c]asses. While speculating that member may have been experiencing personal prob1ems and had additional stress, applicant submitted no  documentary evidence of those prob]ems. At the time of the discharge, applicant waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf. He was counseled by his unit several times in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies and had many opportunities to improve his behavior. He failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts, so he was held accountable for his actions. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant states he has matured as justification for an upgrade, and cites his post-service volunteer work. While the Board commends applicant on these areas, they do not pertain to the period of service under review, and therefore are not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants 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