AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

.£ OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  JN ITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAMF: OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7,.ATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x
x
x

HEARING DATE
02-12-18

A67.90

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0282

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFlCA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMIITED AT TIME Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMA.R.k
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, 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, 3JU> 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

FD2002-0282	
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 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 discipline. He had a Letter of Admonishment, three Letters of Reprimand (LOR), an Article 15, and vacation of suspended punishment. There were also two Memos for Record documenting misconduct.  His misconduct included at least nine documented instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty over a 9-month period of time. On some occasions member was as much as an hour late, and documents reflect he was late on average once per month. At the time of the discharge, applicant waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf. Applicant now cites his desire to receive his G.I. Bill education benefits, and notes he never got into serious trouble. He also states he had applied for a hardship discharge that was denied, and that he requested to be discharged due to personal problems. The Board found nothing in the record to substantiate these claims. The Board noted that in some of his replies to disciplinary action, member agreed he had no excuse for his behavior and stated it would not happen again. He was not however motivated enough to conform to standards and his misconduct continued. The Board also noted member was diagnosed an alcohol abuser, entered into an in-patient detoxification program, and an intensive outpatient alcohol and drug abuse training program. Furthermore, he had been reclassified from the eJectronic warfare career field to financial management because he "didn't want to be there" and it "was hard on (him)." WhiJe understandable that members experiencing personal problems may have additional stress, applicant submitted no documentary evidence of those problems, how they were unique, or that he sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain; Family Support Center, chain of command, or the Mental Health clinic. The Board further noted that when his misconduct occurred member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards. He was counseled 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 cited his desire to receive his G.I. Bill education benefits as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits on applicant, this is 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