AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

X    RECORD REVIEW

x

x

]

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

2

APPLICATION  FOR REVJEW OF DISCHARGE

3

LETIER OF NOTIFICATION

4

BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MJDDU:INJTIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN
II 'Im

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEi, AND OR ORGANIZAllON

ADDRESS  AND OR  ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSH.

MEMBERS SITTING

x

A94.05, A93.09, A93.19

INDl:X NUMBER
A67.50

HEARJNG DATE
03-01-08

NUMJIER
FD2002-03 l0

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
DJTIONAL EXJTIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF SONAL APPEARANCE

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 application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/M   R
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLl'H AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DJSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RI> FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0310	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but dec1ined 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. App1icant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. He had three ArticJes 15, all due to akohol­ relatedMmisconduct. In each instance, he was under legal age to drink, and he became either disorderly or operated a vehicle drunk. In reply to two of the Articles 15, member admits his mistakes. For the first one, he said it was an isolated incident and wouldn't happen again. For the Jast one, he begs for another chance. Member was twice referred to the Alcoho1 and Drug Abuse Rehabi1itation and Treatment Program, successfully completing it the first time on June 21, 2000, just 3 months before his first Article 15. Member had an extensive history of participation in alcoho] rehabilitation programs, yet he continued to commit the same type alcohol-related incidents over a 4-ormore-month period. Although member was counseled extensiveJ y and given numerous opportunities to improve and change his negative behavior, he was unable or unwilling to do so; it is Air Force policy that personnel who do not respond favorably to rehabiJitation be considered for separation. At the time of the discharge, applicant submitted a statement in his own beha1f requesting retention. Applicant now asserts he was having personal problems and depression, and was afraid to talk to a counselor for fear oflosing his Personnel Reliability Program certification, so he turned to alcohol, which he was too young and immature to handle. He further contends he wasn't given adequate support to quit drinking and the severity of his problem wasn't properly recognized. The Board  found nothing in the records to substantiate these issues and finds them without merit. The Board found the records indicate member was given adequate opportunity to improve and conform his behavior to Air Force standards and was of the same age as other airmen who do not violate standards. The applicant' s repeated misconduct was of a very serious nature and members who commit such acts of misconduct, even if alcohol related, are held accountable for their actions. Therefore, no inequity or impropriety was found in his discharge in the course of the records review.

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 conc1udes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiners Brief