AIR FORCE DISCIIARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW

YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGAN17..ATION
'

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOTE OF TIIE BOAl!l>

UOTHC

OTIJER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES
A92.21, AOl.21

HEARING l>ATE
03-01-24

INDEX NUMBER
A67.90

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0351

. IXIDBITS SUBMIT'.l'ED Tq THE BOAR!)
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFlCATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDJTJONAL EXHIBITS SUllMIITED AT 'flME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEAR1NG
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND. THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AITACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAftGE REVJEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

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 application to the AFBCMR.

SA	IBR
C STREET WEST, SUilE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNELCOUNC1L
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	CASI!:NUMBER

FD2002-0351	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for his discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

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 app1icant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

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

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had two Articles 15, and an Unfavorable Infonnation File.  His misconduct included failure to go to his appointed place of duty, then arriving at his appointed place of duty under the influence of alcohol, while he was under the lega] age allowed, and which resulted in his being disrespectful to a superior non-commissioned officer in the performance of his duties. The incident began at 0815 hours, and member's BAT at I 030 hours was .193. In his reply to this Article 15, member admitted he had made some mistakes and that what happened was his fault. His other Article 15 was for sleeping on his post as a Security Forces flight-line sentineJ, as witnessed by two other Security Forces personnel. In his reply to this Article 15, member denied the offense. At the time of the discharge, applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting retention, and a character letter. The Board noted that when his misconduct occurred, member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards and he knew right from wrong, so he was held accountable for his actions. The Board viewed member' s misconduct as a serious departure from the standards expected of airmen. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant cited his desire to return to military service as justification for an upgrade. While the Board commends applicant on this desire to return to military service, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on his reenlistment code, 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