AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME 01<' SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AB

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A92.15, A94.0S, A92.31	A67.10

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

7 AUGUST 03

FD2003-00203	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TJME Ol' PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right 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 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

AFHQ FORM 0.2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE  NUMBER

FD2003 00203	
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 that neither thf evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety th<Jt would justify a change of the discharge.

Issues. Applicant was disc}lJrged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had two AETC Forms 173, "Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic Counseling and Comments," a Record of Individual Counseling, two Letterslof Reprimand, and an Article 15. His misconduct included technical training phase violations such as smoking in uniform and failing to wear his uniform when required, as well as failing to properly maintain his uniforms and personal hygiene, and failing to complete his class requirements and workbook assignments. His Article 15 was for a 19-day absence without leave (AWOL) during which he was classified a deserter. Numerous attempts to physically locate him or learn of his whereabouts through friends and family were unsuccessful. Member eventually turned himself in at his home station. Member had apparentl y made a conscious choice to leave military control and not return until it appeared the consequences were worsening. During subsequent treatment in the mental health clinic, member stated his unit would not allow him to attend a friend's funeral, so he went anyway, and blamed his problems on his commander and the military. The Board noted that applicant had also received 3 days in-patient mental health treatment during the  l 0 days before he went AWOL, after displaying signs of distress during a counseling session. Although he was diagnosed with a phase-of-life problem, it was determined he did not suffer from any disabling mental health condition, and that he clearly desired to be released from the Air Force. It was also learned he had been treated for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from age 3 to 14, a condition apparently not revealed on his enlistment documents. The applicant's enlistment record further reflects he required a moral waiver before being allowed to enter the military because he had numerous traffic offenses, multiple underage drinking incidents, and pre-service marijuana use. At the time of the discharge processing, member waived his right to consult counsel or to submit statements in his own behalf. Applicant now contends his classroom grades indicate he was doing well in technical school, and implies his discharge was too harsh. The Board found no merit in this contention, noting member's failure of one of his block examinations, and repeated failure to complete classroom and workbook requirements. Furthermore, his misconduct was very serious and not compatible with Air Force standards. The records indicate member was counseled repeatedly and given several opportunities to improve his behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so. The Board noted he was of the same age and maturity as most first­ term ainnen who abide by Air Force standards, and there was no evidence he did not know right from
wrong. The Board could find no inequity or impropriety in the processing of his case, and therefore no justification to change his discharge.	.,
CONCLUSIONS: The Disch':lfge Review Board concludes that the discharge w'as consistent with the procedural and substantive reqi!rements of the discharge regulation and was within the disction 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