AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AB
RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OJ\ ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

----- ··----- ··-------------- ··------·

HON	GEN

U01HC	01HER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A67.10

INDEX NUMBER

AOl.13

A93.0l A93.19

1	ORDER APPO!NTING 1HE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO 1HE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  XHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING  DATE

20 Feb 2004

CASE NUMBEll

FD-2003-00440

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDRf.WS AFB, MD 10762-7002

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00440	

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

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 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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and three Letters of Reprimand for misconduct which consisted of a leave violation, missing a scheduled training movement, failing to report to training on time, failure to obey an instructor's order, violating an order by driving off base after his driving privileges were revoked and he was restricted to base, and drunk driving while underage.  Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too
harsh, contending he was not fully aware of the details about the missed training movement, denying driving while off base, and not understanding the restrictions of the training phase program.  The Board found no evidence to support applicant's contentions and opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior but was unwilling or unable to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant noted his age when he enlisted and his lack of experience, knowledge and maturity.  The Board noted applicant was age 19 when his misconduct occurred, essentially the same age as other airmen who adhere to the standards expected of them and complete their enlistments without any infractions.  There is no evidence that applicant did not know right from wrong or was more immature than other airmen his age.  The Board found this contention unpersuasive.

Issue 3.  Applicant noted his inexperience with alcohol consumption, as well as his perception of prevalent alcohol use by his co-workers, to include others who drank under age or drove while intoxicated.  While the Board realizes applicant's alcohol use may have impaired his judgment,  individuals are still held accountable for their actions while under the influence of alcohol.  This contention does not provide a basis to mitigate  the actions that led to the discharge, or its characterization.

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.

Inview 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