AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

+  NAME OF SERVICE !>!EMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB

;;;...	I

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW
NAME Of COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	. ADDRESS AND OR ORGAIZ.A TIO'."! Of cot-r..sEL

	x	
	x	
	x	

MEMBER SITTING

 	.................,

ISSUES

A92.ll A9J.f19

INDfX NUMD£R	A67.90

CASE NUMBER

I	ORDER APPONT!NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCH_A_R_G_E	_
3	LETTER OF NOT!FICATION
4	BRIEF OF
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THF BOARD ADDlTlONAL EXHIBITS SUBMllTED

08 Oct 2003	FD-2003-00328

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

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

SECRETARY OF THE A.lR FQJtCt: PERSON"'it:l, COC'SClL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RI:VtEW BOARD
tS3S COM.11,fAND DR, F.E WING, J.RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, !'-ID J:0762·100l

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE Nt:MBER

FD-2003-00328	
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 (DRB) 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 the 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.

Issue I. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The records  indicated he received two Articles 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and had an Unfavorable Information File.  His misconduct included taking another airman's private vehicle without permission, driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, and disobeying an order not to drive on base while his privileges were revoked.  The medical records also reflect member was hospitalized for a suicide attempt, and he was suffering from worsening depression as a result of his DUI and revocation offenses.  He was deemed a significant suicide risk at that time.  At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting an honorable discharge in order to preserve his access to the G .1. Bill education benefits.  Nevertheless, the Board notes member was age 20 and 21 when his offenses occurred and there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wTong.  He was essentially the same age as other airmen who adhere to the expected standards and fmish their terms of service honorably without misconduct. The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior, but was unable or unwilling to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  Thus, the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant is doing well, enrolled in college, and involved in volunteer activities.  However, these are not matters that relate to a potential inequity or impropriety in his discharge, so the Board concluded his term of service was appropriately characterized due to his misconduct.

Issue 3. The applicant cited his desire to have better civilian employment opportunities and perhaps return to military service. While the Board w11s sympathetic to the impact the general discharge was having on the applicant, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety 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