,,	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF s1:RVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
-

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AIC

1  r m r

TVPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL ANV  OR ORGA?\'lZATlON

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS Al'iD OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTIJC	OTHER	DENY

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

+-----\----

-+---

-+---

-+----!
x
x x x

UMBER	A67.90	I	
ORDER APPOINTIN() THE BOARD	
	2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
	4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
		COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
		TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
MBER

03-00496			

x

A93.07 A94.05

- - - - ------ '------ L------

HEARING DA TE	CASE!lilJ

04 Aug 2004

FD-20

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel. DD Fonn  149 submitted.  The case will be forwarded to the AFBCMR for further processing.

--------------	---------- 2/2_ _	,,,------------------------------· --	-----1

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREE	EST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL Affi FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAJ\"D DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDRE\\"S 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 NUl\1BER

FD-2003-00496	

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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He noted most of his incidents related to off duty conduct, that he was not given an opportunity to go to Correctional Custody to correct his behavior, and that he felt some of the disciplinary actions taken were unjust.  The records indicated the applicant received seven Letters of Reprimand, a verbal counseling, and had an Unfavorable Information File due to his misconduct.  His infractions included numerous instances of writing bad checks and failing to pay his debts, two failures to go, two incidents of dereliction of duty, a domestic altercation, and communicating a threat to another dependent wife.  Applicant also had an Enlisted Performance rated an overall referral "2" that chronicled his problems with professionalism, military bearing, meeting standards, and requiring close supervision.  The DRB opined that through these many administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and 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 contended many of his disciplinary issues arose as a result of his marital problems.  While the Board recognized the applicant's marital problems may have had a bearing on his difficulties, the Board did not find these of sufficient mitigation to explain his misconduct.  The Board finds the discharge procedurally proper and equitable and no change is warranted.

Issue 3.  Applicant cited his desire to seek a career in civilian law enforcement and not wanting his mistakes of youth to continue preventing his future advancement.  While the Board recognized applicant was age 20 when he was discharged, he was the same age as other first term airmen who adhere to the standards and successfully complete their enlistments without misconduct.  There was no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  Furthermore, while the Board commends applicant on his post-service aspirations, and is sympathetic to the impact of his discharge on those, these are not relevant to his period of service for which his misconduct appropriately characterizes the discharge.

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