AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
X	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANJZA TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN.ILA TION Ol' COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

L----------------------------------------------

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

A93.01	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 APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE  NUMBER

23 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00335

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.

-------------------------------	------------------------------------------------------------------

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJE\\I BOARD
1535 COMMAND DA,. EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 207627002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00335	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable  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 and change ofreenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had an Article 15, subsequent vacation of suspended punishment, and an Unfavorable Information File as a result of two underage drinking incidents. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting retention, or in the alternative, that he be offered probation and rehabilitation (P & R), with the opportunity to participate in an in-patient alcohol rehabilitation program. These requests were denied. The record reflected that at the time of his first underage drinking incident, applicant lied in a sworn statement to Security Police investigators about the circumstances of his offense, and later recanted. At that time he was sent for an alcohol abuse evaluation and based on his own replies to the extensive in-take questionnaire, in which he denied a serious alcohol problem, he was entered into a Track 2 Substance Abuse Awareness  Seminar of the Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation Treatment (SART) program, after which he was determined to have successfully completed the program. Less than 2 months later, his second offense occurred. Applicant was again referred to the SART program, and his new in-take questionnaire was markedly different from the previous one, and at this time he was diagnosed alcohol dependent. His commander specifically stated that had applicant been honest with the Security Police and shown integrity during the SART in-take after his first incident, he could have been considered for P & R. However, given his dishonesty, the commander did not think that appropriate after the second offense, particularly in view of the negative impact it could have had on unit morale and discipline. The records also reflected applicant entered the military service on a moral waiver due to a pre-service arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol that occurred at age 17. The Board noted member was given the opportunity to correct his behavior but was initially either unwilling or unable to do so. Because member was responsible for his actions, he was held accountable for them. The Board found nothing during the course of the record review to warrant an upgrade. There was no inequity or impropriety, thus the characterization of service was deemed appropriate in view of the repeated misconduct.

Ifhe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifhe should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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