AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (1,AST, FIRST MIDDI,E INITIAi,)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

•

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x
x
'L------------------------------------- '

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A93. 19, A92.37, A94.53	A67.10
1	
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
03-05-07

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0476

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TilE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

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 OP THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WTNG, 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

FD2002-0476	

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 applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for the 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 misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Letters of Reprimand (LOR), a Record of Individual Counseling, a traffic ticket for speeding, and another memo for record documenting delinquency on his Deferred Payment Plan account. He had two Enlisted Performance Reports, one rated an overall referral "3." His misconduct included being late for work at least four times, sleeping on duty at least three times, once during an exercise, towing an excessive amount of aerospace ground equipment during an exercise, and being arrested by civilian law enforcement authorities for driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of at least .14. These infractions occurred over an 18-month period of time. Member was counseled by his unit several times 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. Additionally, member had a history of mental health visits, hospitalization for suicidal ideation, and was diagnosed alcohol dependent. On a previous enlistment he had had at least two other alcohol-related incidents of misconduct and had been put on the Control Roster and into the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program as a result. There were also indications member had been on the Weight Management Program at one time. At the time of the discharge, applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting an honorable discharge. The Board noted that when his misconduct occurred, member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards, and in spite of the unit's efforts to help member correct his deficiencies, he was not motivated enough to conform to standards and his misconduct continued. No inequity or impropriety was found in this 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 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