' -·-

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
'	-

NAME OF SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INJTIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
'	I''

TYPE'
GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

X  RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF TUE BOARD

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUJ:S
AOl.01, AOl.43, AOI.55

INDDC NUMBER
A67.10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFJCA TION

HEARING  DATE
03-03-07

CASJ: NUMBJ:R
FD2002-0409

4		BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXfilBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF  PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	·z.,

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARIH>E9 IC»!Af 1'.Atl<>NALE.

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

I·.•-,.•

'!II\'   .,    '
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/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, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0409	

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 nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety or inequity that would justify an upgrade of the discharge to honorable.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had a verbal  counseling,  four Letters of Reprimand, and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). His misconduct included failure to go, failure to pay an overdue bill, failure to renew his British vehicle road tax and driving on base without it, two civilian convictions for driving while intoxicated, and thrice failing to provide a breath test when requested to by law enforcement authorities. Member was referred to the  base  alcohol  rehabilitation program, but denied he had a problem with alcohol, thus it was deemed he could not be rehabilitated. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. Applicant now contends his discharge should be upgraded because of a clerical error in  the notification and recommendation documents. In reviewing  the record, the Board noted that the letter of notification member received stated he could be given either a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, or an honorable discharge, and that the commander was recommending an honorable discharge. Additionally, the receipt of notification that member signed acknowledges that member realized he could receive either a general  or honorable  discharge. However, the letter of recommendation to the convening authority who would decide member's characterization of service, from the unit commander, recommends member receive a general discharge (contrary to the notification letter which said the commander was recommending an honorable discharge).  Likewise, the legal review provided the convening authority notes the unit commander recommended a general discharge. In a letter written  "To Whom  It May Concern" three days before member's general discharge was executed, provided to the discharge review board by the applicant, the unit commander states the recommendation letter was in error in that he intended to recommend an honorable discharge, and the orderly room staff that had prepared the letter had made a serious administrative error. He further states neither the base personnel office nor the base legal office supported re-accomplishing member's package due to the imminence of member's  departure port call, but would support a subsequent discharge upgrade or correction to records. The Board noted the absence of similar supporting letters from personnel office or legal office staff members, and opined that although the recommendation letter may have been in error, it was not a harmful error in that member was notified and acknowledged he could receive either a general or honorable characterization of service, and it was the convening authority's decision as to which characterization was appropriate based on member's record and incidents of misconduct. After review  of all of the documents, including the letter of notification wherein the commander stated he intended to recommend an honorable discharge, the convening authority had the grounds on which to determine member should receive a general discharge. The Board noted member was given many opportunities to correct his behavior but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them because his misconduct was disruptive. The board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade at this time, and no clear inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.