AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

YES

			
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW	
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL	

-GRADE

x x x
x

ISSl:ES

A92.1S A92.01

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE ---
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION ---- ----
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE------------<
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE
24 Sep 2003.

CASE Nl:MBER
FD-200 \ '\0299

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF P£RSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boan    the right to a	. sonal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

lITARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
>RCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
I	)MMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR A,	WS AFB, MD 2&762-7002

(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00299	

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

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, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Articles 15; one for failure to go and another for failing to pay his government travel card debt. Additionally, member was permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program for intentionally overdosing on his prescribed Zoloft in combination with alcohol for the purpose of getting "high."  Member was hospitalized for this incident and it was first believed to be a suicidal gesture. Member had the prescription because he had been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and occupational problems. At the time of the discharge, member waived his right to consult counsel and submit a statement in his own behalf. Applicant now contends he had a good service record and should be given an upgrade. The Board noted member had several opportunities to improve his behavior, and he was age 21 to 22 when his offenses occurred, the same age as other airmen who adhere to standards. He was counseled 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.

Applicant cited his desire to return to military service. While the Board commends applicant on this aspiration, this is not relevant to the period of service under review and therefore, does not provide a basis for an 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