AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMJIER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AIC

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COllNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRE.SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING	HON
l --=- - -=- -=- --=-=--- -	- -

-1--GEN--+
U-O-T	
HC---+O- THER  -+-D-ENY-1
U-O-T	
--················•,	-J
x
x x x
x
1SSUiS - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ---

A93.19 A92.22 A94.12 A92.36

INDEX NUMBER	A67.90
A60.00	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

12 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00433

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 ·

..--£\.-_ J _ _[_ - - - ----- - - - - ----- .11.'..J.--- .l..- - - - ----- - - - -'----Ll../J.- ----- - - - - -;	1

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
l5J5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 2(1762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NU!\1BER

FD-2003-00433	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant personally appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Andrews AFB MD, on 12 February 2004. The applicant had no witnesses and, other than his testimony, presented no additional evidence.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of Discharge is 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:

The applicant submitted four issues for review and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity upon which to base an upgrade of the discharge. The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15 action, one vacation action, four letters of reprimand, and sixteen records of individual counseling. Almost all the disciplinary actions taken concerned the applicants failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the appointed time. Some of the instances of failure to go involved alcohol abuse because the applicant would arrive late to work in a disheveled state with the odor of alcohol on his breath and person. He was also disciplined for failure to obey an order, failure to adhere to dress and appearance standards, and for a few other minor offenses.

Issue 1. Applicant  contends discharge was inequitable because it involved nothing more than minor offenses. While it is true that the discharge was based on nothing more than minor offenses, that does not mean the discharge was improper or inequitable. The applicant did not contest the allegations and was actually quite forthright in his acknowledgement of his misconduct and his acceptance ofresponsibility. The administrative disciplinary actions taken against the applicant were perfectly appropriate and were designed to impress upon the applicant the need to stop committing these minor, but highly disruptive infractions. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. His repeated failure to do so essentially left the command with no choice but to discharge the applicant. Upgrade for this reason is not appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant contends that he was the victim of arbitrary and capricious supervisory and command action. Although not specifically stated as an issue by the applicant, it became clear during the hearing that the applicant felt his supervisor was "out to get him." He complained that his supervisor was simply looking for things to discipline him for and that he had been singled out for negative treatment. The DRB concluded that the applicant may very well have become the focus of negative attention, but that in his case, the negative attention was the result of having committed so many infractions and not responding to the rehabilitative efforts of his supervisory chain. The applicant readily admitted that he engaged in the misconduct. It was therefore hard to find fault with the applicant's supervisors for taking disciplinary action against him. There was simply insufficient evidence suggesting the applicant had become the focus of arbitrary or capricious action by his supervisor or command chain. Upgrade for this reason is not appropriate.	

Issue 3. Applicant claims that his use of alcohol impaired his ability to serve. While certainly true, the record indicates that every effort was made to stop the applicant from using alcohol and that his decision to do so was a matter of nothing more than deliberate personal choice. The applicant indicated that his drinking was not the result of dependence but, rather, was motivated by his desire to "have a good time" with his friends. The command appropriately placed the applicant in alcohol counseling, which he completed. The applicant noted that he no longer drinks except on rare social occasions. The DRB concluded that while the applicant's alcohol use may have impaired his ability to serve, he was not dependent on alcohol or embroiled in a situation in which alcohol use was beyond his control. His use of alcohol was perfectly within his control and he simply refused to accept personal responsibility to curtail his drinking. Thus, this issue does not provide a basis upon which to upgrade the discharge.

Issue 4. Applicant contends that his outstanding post-service activities and conduct provide a basis for upgrading his discharge characterization. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant seemed to be doing well and has a good job. However, there was otherwise no evidence presented by the applicant on the issue of his post-service conduct. Given the lack of evidence of outstanding post-service conduct, it was not possible to evaluate the evidence in a meaningful way or to consider whether this was an appropriate reason to upgrade the discharge.

It should be noted that while not strictly an issue, the applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (on the DD Form 2366) indicating he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which 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