E

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

..	. .
.  TYPE
I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x  RECORD REVIEW
C(}f!NL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR OJl.GANIZAT!ON	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

'	.

VOTE OF.TIIE uuARD
<
MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

COL JOSEPH M. MARCHINO II

COL HORACE R. CARSON COL THOMAS. E. HAMMEN LT COL R. GAYLE FULTS
MAJOR CHRISTOPHER C. VANNATTA

x x
•	x
x x
ISSUES	INDEX  NUMBER	.	lilflblBITS  SUBMI'l"I'EE'1;<""'"EJ(IARD
A94.05	A67.90	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLJCATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATJON
HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	i
1 MAY 03	FD2002-0516	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TTME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

.

APPLICANr:s ISSUE·1'00> THltl!OAlll>'!ICD&;ISlONi'\lf.JlAJIONAL .AREDI$Cl1Sl!l,) ONTHE ATTACIIED''Alll.1'01!.CE DISCHARGE REVIEW SOARD DECISIONAL AiTIONALE
...·
REMARKS
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.

SIGNATURE OF RECORDER	SIGNATURE OF BOA	 	

····· ·.·•···	··

<• •	.	•• "f' '"   •

1(''

..,	... . .	..	.

,!
THOMAS E. HAMMEN, COLONEL, USAF	MARCHINO II, COL=L, USAF

.J .	..	•	.   ..	<Ar • • .....	':.,;	,>:••    , .	<	DATE:  l•. M'Y:,Q3
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MIBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742		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	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0516	

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

The appJicant 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 too harsh because on his discharge notification memorandum it states that on 16 Dec 01 he was arrested for an underage drinking charge which he says is not true. The applicant's issue is without merit. The record clearly shows that on 16 Dec 01, he was taken into custody by Security Forces for a minor in possession while being drunk and disorderly, resisting arrest and threatening the arresting patrolman. In addition, he spoke disrespectfully to his First Sergeant, and disobeyed his orders when he came to meet him at the law enforcement desk. The record also indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully failing to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages  while under the age of 21 years and for willfully damaging a government vehicle by maliciously ripping and pulling the interior. In addition, he received five Letter's of Reprimand for underage drinking; making a false official statement; being drunk and disorderly, resisting  arrest, threatening  the  arresting patrolman, being disrespectful to the First Sergeant, and disobeying his orders; receiving a traffic ticket for having a forged/altered registration, allowing two individuals to drive a car with expired registration, hindering an investigation, and dishonesty; and for being apprehended for a minor in possession of alcohol. Finally, he received a Record of Individual Counseling for failure to go to a substance abuse awareness seminar. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct  expected  of  all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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