AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INHIALJ

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
f\A. ll: OF COF!IOSEL A".11,jD OR ORGANIZA llON

-

GRADE	AFS/SSA N

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS A.ND OR ORGANUA TION or·cou.NSEL

 	

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x x

INDEX NI:'MBER
A94.53, ,\Ol.43	A67.50

1 • ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DJSCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEAruN GDATE --------+cAs=E=NTM=sE=R ----------1-4--+. ..BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
17 JULY 03	FD2003-00043	cOllNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHlBITfS.0JiM'ffi1l)·A·T...TTME OF PERSO:NAL   APPEARANCE
TAPE R.ECORDrNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

:     Case heard  at  Washington,  D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board a nd the righ t to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AJR FORCE DlSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3"' 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

l''D2003-00043	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. He had an Article 15, seven Records of Individual Counseling, six Letters of Reprimand, an Enlisted Performance Report that was rated an overall referral "I," and was placed on the Control Roster. His misconduct occurred over an 12-month period and included failure to go or being late for duty five times, failure to obey a lawful order, failing to follow the appropriate technical order, driving a government vehicle at an unsafe speed, failing to follow safety proced ures, failure to follow required procedures, and dereliction of duty by failure to follow military inspection procedures. Member's medical records disclosed he was returned to duty after a medical
evaluation board in which he was diagnosed with attention-deficit I hyperactivity disorder of the inattentive type, something for which he had apparently been treated from age 5 to 12, but which wasn't reflected on
his enlistment physical.  With regard to applicant's misconduct, the Board noted member had had at least 14 separate opportunities to improve his behavior.  At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel but waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The Board noted that member was age 24 to 25 when his offenses occurred, the same age as other airmen who adhere to standards. He was counseled repeatedly in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies.  In spite of those rehabilitative efforts, he was unwilling or unable to improve his behavior.  The Board concluded applicant knew right from wrong and was responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them.  No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.   Furthermore, since some of the discharge documents are not available for review, and lacking any evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board must rely on the presumption of regularity and found no wrongfol action by the Air Force, and finds the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.

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