AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	-
AME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

d	IT f	
	
X    RECORD REVIEW	
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	

N

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.30	ORDER APPOINTING TIIB BOARD
TION FOR REVIEW OF DISCH	GE

BEARING llATE

CASE NUMBER

F NOTIFICATlON
'L FILE

03-05-16

FD2002-05 18	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT T PERSONAL APPEARANCE

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    ght to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

S	IBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31'J) FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will b

		

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-05 I 8		

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but d( exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the <

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

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substa inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.	
son and lined to
scharge. ange  of

tiates an	
Issues.  Applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense.  Member received two A ticles 15
and a Record of Individual Counseling. His misconduct included failure to stop and render prop r respect to the flag during retreat even after given an order to do so, wrongfully having sexual intercou e with a married woman not his wife, being drunk and disorderly, using provoking language toward Security Forces member in the execution of his duties, spitting on and kicking that Security Forces me ber, and kicking another noncommissioned officer Security Forces member in the stomach during lis same incident. The records review disclosed member entered the Air Force with a morals waiver due o having five speeding and careless driving tickets. As a result of his alcohol-related incident wherein he assaulted two Security Forces members in the execution of their duties, he was sent to the 8-day Substan Abuse, Rehabilitation, and Treatment program and diagnosed an alcohol abuser. At the time of the scharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf stating that a general disc ilrge was acceptable. The Board noted member was age 22 when his misconduct occurred, essentially the Dame age as other airmen who complete their enlistments without disciplinary infractions, and there was nc   vidence
he did not know right from wrong. His misconduct was disruptive, and its seriousness outwc ghed his otherwise satisfactory service. The board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgra< e, and no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.  The1 fore, the
Board found the record supports the characterization of service received.

The applicant noted he is now serving in the Army National Guard and cited his desire to return o service in the Air Force. While the Board commends applicant on this desire, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on his reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that "' ITTants an upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consisten with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discre1 :m of the discharge authority and that the applicant was prnvided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitabl basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief