,,
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MJDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

1 ,	;	·  ' - '
.	AMN

GE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ.A.TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA. TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

VOTE o•·THE WARD
GEN	uornc.

OTH£R

PENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXlURITS SUBMITil:D TO nm BOARD

A92.0l, A92.03, A92.ll, 'A94.11, AOI.39, AOl.13,
4	AOI.25

A67.10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
IO JUN 03

CASE NUMllER
FD2003 00Ill
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITlONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND HIE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUS$£D ON THE AITACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISI   NAI. RATIONALE. 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.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS  AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFIIQ FORM 0 2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00111	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorabl e.

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

The attached brief contai ns available perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:   Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board  finds that  neither  the evidence of record  nor that provided  by the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  He had an Article 15 for signing a false official statement, making a false statement to his commander, willfully damaging government property, assaulting another airman, and harassing two other ainnen while being disorderly.  At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf requesting retention.

Issues 1 - 3.  Applicant infers his discharge was inequitable in view of his excellent duty history reflected in his performance reports, awards and decorations, and promotion selection.  The records review disclosed  that all of the misconduct referred to in member's Article 15 occurred during two alcohol-related incidents. These followed two previous alcohol-related incidents, as recounted in one of the character statements applicant submitted at the time of discharge.  While it is true that member had a satisfactory duty history apart from his alcohol-rel ated misconduct, and the record reflects he was a cooperative, successful
participant in the substance abuse rehabilitation program, his commander considered these factors but determined member's misconduct was so b'f ave that it did not warrant retention.  The DRB agreed that the seriousness of member's misconduct offset the positive aspects of his duty performance.   Member was responsible for his actions and was held accountable for them because his misconduct was disruptive to the unit.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons that were its basis.

Issues 4 - 7.  Applicant infers his discharge was inappropriate due to inadequate representation by legal counsel, false accusations made against him, and his belief he was made an example of by his command. Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these contentions and the Board found these issues without merit.

Issue 8.  Applicant contends he had no opportunity for rehabilitation following his Article  15, and that the discharge served to punish him twice for the same offenses.  Applicant's contentions are unfounded.  The discharge regulations clearly gave his chain of command authority to recommend  discharging him based on unsuitability for further military service as a result of his serious misconduct.  Facts and circumstances are different in each action and must be judged  on a case-by-case basis.  In doing so, a commander must consider the seriousness of the misconduct and how a member's retention might affect good order, discipline, and morale, not just the member's rehabilitative potential.  Administrative separation is a  separate and distinct action apart from the Article 15; it is an action that severs the military status of an individual and characterizes his service, but is not the same as the punishment rendered by the non-judicial proceeding for his misconduct.   Commission  of serious repeat offenses clearly established applicant's unsuitability for further Air Force service.