--

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF	RVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INIDAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN
x	RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A67.50	
	A69.00	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LETfER 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

14 Jan 2004	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00499			

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

---------------------------------------------·-----····-----····---'-.1.U!".t'.:..n.._.1,_,,f"i,.""_L,,	1

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COL"NCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	ISJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 2ct762-7002	

-,...----------	·-------"-----------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

.

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

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00499	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly and a Vacation action under the UCMJ for  the same thing, being drunk and disorderly.  Applicant states that he was under a serious depression and that he was young and immature.  The ORB recognized the applicant was 23 years of age when the discharge  took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The applicant was also sent to substance abuse counseling.  However, he refused to cooperate with staff members and remain sober while enrolled in the program.  He was returned to his based and discharged for failure in the substance abuse program.  The ORB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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