AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

:(l'(IUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA'flON
YES	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7.ATlON OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

V01'E OF THE BOARD

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A93.0t, A93.t9	A67.10

lCXHffiITS SUBMITTF.D'TO 'rHE BOARD
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER Ot NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER	4

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

9 Jan 03	FD2002-0331	COUNSEL'S RELEASE: TO TllE BOAR D
ADDIT!ONAL E:XHll3!TS.S-.U......B....N. 1..l.T..."T"'E=rJ .A....T.--,-I-M_E_C:cF",----­
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

APPUCAl\ff.! JSSUE AND THE BOAR;D'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON HIE ATTACHED AlR FORCE

PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
DECISIONAL RAT!ONALE

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

RESl  'NI

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

FROM:

: 9 Jan 03

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
I 535 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

FD02-0331	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

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, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable since it was based upon his alcoholism compounded by a general lack of maturity. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 and being drunk and disorderly. He also received two Letters of Reprimand for consuming alcoholic beverages under the age of 21, a Letter of Counseling for failure to maintain his dorm room in compliance with set cleanliness standards, a Record of individual Counseling for missing a dental appointment, and a Armed Forces Traffic Ticket for operating a vehicle with an expired license plate. The applicant had received numerous opportunities to conform, however, his misconduct continued. He was placed into the alcohol rehabilitation program and continued to drink under age. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older then the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. However, if the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If he should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post­ service accomplishments as well an any contributions to the community. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge. The characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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 vi 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