AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

-NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

••

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.23 A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.IO

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
3	
HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

24 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00330

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

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 WES  , SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1533 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

FD2003-00330	

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, seven Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and a Letter of Admonishment. His misconduct included eleven incidents of failure to go, making a false official statement regarding omission of information from his personal security clearance questionnaire, specifically information about theft of personal property and selling stolen property, and failure to obey a lawful order. Additionally, member was permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program for the incident regarding his personnel security questionnaire and the related criminal activities. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting retention, while admitting his misconduct. Applicant now contends he should be given an upgrade because most of his incidents occurred during his final year of enlistment, and were predicated by his marital problems and child custody issues, which caused him to become depressed and lose motivation. While it is understandable that a member experiencing personal problems has additional stress, member's problems were not unique. Furthermore, there is no evidence he sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain, family support center, the mental health clinic, or his chain of command. Because he was unable to separate his personal problems from his duties, he became a burden on his unit and a disruptive influence. He was either unable or unwilling to correct his behavior. The Board could not find sufficient mitigation or extenuation to warrant an upgrade, and the records review disclosed no inequity or impropriety.

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