---- -----------------------·- ·-   ----·--·------·-·------------------	··-------,
A IR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
'l;Ai\IE OF srnHn: i\IFi\IBt:R (l...\ST. FI RS:I'  ii)i)_L_E l_N_l'l l_A_L_)	(;_R-..\D  E--..\F_S_l_'\'/_SS_,.-\:-\	,,., ._ ...,_	. ..

£	UllZUll	--..-·--------·-----	---·	llf!•lll!ll!·	_ 1
1

r-C-O_l_NS-l L     -·J-  ..\  (-- S  l\.	ll )	APPRESS \!	?17 ,	(  ll;  stT	_  - -	-

NO	1'
:\
--------------------·---------·------·---------·+---------,.0T_f ()f_T_l_lf_U_O_._Rl_l	j

MEMBERS SITTING	llO'i

l'OTllC

ornrR

"'" - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --·::.. "-:!::!"::"'::"::..-::-'.:..=-=- - -=- - - -=- - - ---------------+----+-----·- ·	--
'

x	-1

--------------+

x-------+-- ----+---"' "- -· -------
I

 		------+--------+----+--------
.	x	I
-:	:	-+--x ----+-- ---+------+----- --- --   ---- -  _ _ j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _•	.,	X	I

lSl lS
A93.0I,A94.05

INPE\  Nl 1      111lll
A67.IO

EXlllUITS SllUMITHI) r(rri"ii:BO !!.!:>--·---.-·--------- - 	

=i

-1

ORDER  Al'POINTIN(i   1 1 11.:  BOARD

2	APPLICATl6j\fFQR R f- Vlf W llF Dl\CllAR(if
3	LCTTER OF NOTIFICATION

-lit::liU'i(';' '.\:i·1:---·----------+-(:._\SE_ _ 11M_ B_E_K	--+-4-t-l-3R- l-l:I·-< ) F  f'[RS,_(_)·N·-"N1_l - F_ll_J_.• ------------,

30 .IA N 03

F02002-0495	COL INSIL"'\ RLLFASL: TO Tl II  BOA_ _l{_l)

.	Jj:

r----+------------- J.J -·.---------------

=- 1

AIJIJll l()NAL LXI llllllS SUBMITITIJ ,\T    I IMI. ( JI
PERSONAL  Al'l'Fi\R ANCI	I

TAPE

I	Rri-<JR6fr::i(;(,l:-1>rnsuNA I. Al'l'l·R,\NC 1    111AR IN
_:::'n_ Sl>" ,\Ml Tiil' HOARD s DECISIONAL RATLONAL ARE DIS('LISSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DfS('HARGf RFVH W BOAR[) DioCTSTi.5NA	io:LE

lll..\l.\Rlo,;S
Case heard at Andrews A FB, MD	I
Advise upplicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the A FBCMR	I
I
I
I

1

_'1G:S.!J·1 .IU'-OE ru:1 Jitfu1---_-\.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ s.JC.:l!!ii.il 'll.D.J"Jl l=:. D:D.J..P.n.. ei.u;::""-1.1\.F.NJ_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i
I
I
------!

'b------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 	

INOORSLMLNT

I	nATE: 14 MAY o

--i0 .. ------------- ----------,110-,- --------------------	·-··-,-----·J--··· 1

\AF/MIRR
:i:ill (' \TRITT WISL SUIT[ 40
RANDOLPH M'f3. TX 781 50-4742

SECRETAR Y OF THE AIR FORCI' Pl- R\ONNll. COllNl'll AIR l·URCT DISCI IAR(iL RFVIFW ROi\IW
1 535 COMMAND DR_ LL WIN(i_ J"" I LUOR
ANDR[WS M B. MD 20762-7002

-- ---------- ·---------··  ,.	_	----- ·--····-·-  ---·-------------·---- .
A FHQ FORM 0-2077, .JAN 00	(Ef -V2)	Previous edition will be used.

A I R  FORCE  DISCHARG E REVIEW  BOARD  DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	(.\SE '.\DIBEH

FD2002-0495	

GENERAL:  The appl icant appeal s for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason and authority and change of reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB. MD on May 14, 2003.

FI N DINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds t hat nei ther evidence of record nor t hat provided  by the applicant substantiates an ineq ui ty or i mpropriety  that would justi fy a change of discharge.

ISSU ES: The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief. The appl icant contends his discharge was ineq uitable because it was too harsh, he was immature, and the Air Force did not properly treat his alcohol problem.  The appl icant was discharged wit h a general ( under honorable cond itions) discharge for minor
discipl inary  i nfractions a ller 3 years, 6 months and 9 days of service.  The mem ber recei ved three Letters of Repri mand for bei ng drunk and disorderl y. for a civi lian arrest for driving while intoxicated  ( DW I ) and
d ri v ing wi thout insurance, and for reporti ng to work without shaving. He received two Articles 15. one fi:Jr drinking under age (the same incident as the DWI) and disobeying a lawful order by wrongfu l l y driving on base while his base driving privil eges were revoked,  the latter offense triggering  discharge  action.
Evidence from testimony  indicates that the applicant was properl y entered i nto the base alcohol abuse and prevention  program with his initial Letter of Reprimand for an alcohol-rel ated incident.  Followi ng his DW I arrest, he was again entered into the base alcohol treatment program  and testified  that he refrai ned  from
drinking alcohol after that time.  Despite this positive response to d iscipl inary and rehabilitat ive efforts. the appl icant chose to disobey his commander's order revoking his base privileges to drive on base.  At the
ti me of this last oftense, the applicant had been i n the Air Force for over three years and could no longer he considered  ignorant of m i l itary ru les and customs.  As to the applicant 's contention that somehow t he J\ F failed to prepare him for his reassignment to Wyomi ng, the DRB noted that other airmen less tha n 21 years of age had made the adjustment of assignment. either  Crom overseas or other stateside bases. where the legal drinki ng age was  1 8. to bases in Wyoming and other states which imposed the higher drink ing age of 21 .
These airmen  were able to successfull y make the transition through self-discipl ine, refrai ning from the u rge of thei r previous alcohol  privi leges,'.vithout committing alcohol  related  disciplinary  infractions.   The DR B also opined from the applicanf s testimony that his drinking habits were attributed  to a social  depend ence rather than  a physical  dependence  on alcohol. as evidenced  by his change  in  lifestyle  and social associations follovdng treatment.   The OR B noted the appl icant"s record of very good duty performance  reflected  in performance  reports: however.  the seriousness  of the willful  misconduct  was a significant  departure  from conduct expected of al l  military  members.

CONCLlJSJONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with t he procedu ral and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was wit hin the discret ion of
t he discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrati ve due process.

In view of the foregoing find ings 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
Exam iner's Brief