..•.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

• r ma· ,• m• 1nr

,

.,

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
TYPE GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AlC
RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
11 nn r · r11a

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
-'   -----------------------------------

'-------------------------------------

HON

x

X*

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

x
x

ISSUES

A93.01

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Apr 2004

FD-2003-00327

Case heard at Fort Gillem, GA, via video-teleconference with Andrews AFB, MD.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

-'

'	''

'.-£tlMQ!\Rf.!::9-Q!L.........._J_ .. ...L>••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,
:-
'''

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET W	UITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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

FD-2003-00327	

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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with c.ounsel at Fort Gillem, GA, via video-teleconference with Andrews AFB, MD, on April 22, 2004.	applicant's father, also appeared and testified on behalf of his son.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 6:	Cumberland University Acceptance Letter
Exhibit 7:	Cumberland University Registration Verification Exhibit 8:	Cumberland University Scholarship Document
Exhibit 9:   Character Reference Letter from	Prime Outlets
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

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

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. Member received a Letter of Counseling, a Record of Individual Counseling, two Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15 for misconduct. His infractions included failing to complete his technical school homework on numerous occasions, failing to follow rules and regulations, and underage drinking. Applicant feels his discharge was too harsh because he was young and immature and was initially selected for a difficult career field for which he wasn't mentally prepared. Although applicant accepts full responsibility for his actions and admitted what he did was wrong, he feels it wasn't worthy of a discharge. The Board noted that applicant was washed back in Basic Military Training (BMT), was disenrolled from his first technical school for disciplinary and administrative reasons, and subsequently was recommended for administrative discharge while in his second technical training school for multiple infractions. The Board noted applicant was age 19 when discharged, essentially the same age as most first term airmen who successfully complete their enlistments without misconduct. There was no evidence he did not know right from wrong or was unable to correct his behavior. Thus the Board found applicant's contention without merit. The Board noted that applicant had three opportunities in different training environments to correct his behavior but was unable or unwilling to do so.  The Board could find no inequity or impropriety in the discharge action during the course of the records review or the testimony that would warrant 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