AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
-··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··--

-I-SS-U-E--S ··----- ··----- ··-----INDEX -N-U-M--B·ER·

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

AOl.13
A94.03
A93.21

A67.IO

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITTONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEAIUNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00513

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.

----------- ----	----)

_ _ _/2_ _ _ .A.•./J......tJ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

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

SECRETARY OF TBJ; AIR :J'ORCE PERSONNJ:L COUNCIL AIR. FORCE DlSCBAJlGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 2070-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00513	

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: Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. The records indicated applicant was habitually late to work or failed to go and received an Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment, a Record of Individual Counseling, another memorandum documenting his misconduct, had an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the Control Roster. At the time of the discharge processing, applicant consulted counsel and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. Applicant now contends he learned after his discharge that he has muscular dystrophy, and he believes a more thorough medical examination while in the military should have disclosed this, which he believes was the cause of his inability to wake up. The records reflected applicant was evaluated for a sleep disorder, but ultimately a sleep disorder was ruled out; it was determined his habitual lateness was due to poor sleep hygiene, such as staying up until 4:00am, only getting about 4 hours of sleep per night, drinking a full pot of caffeinated coffee per day, and smoking about an hour before going to bed. After changing these sleep habits, and keeping a sleep diary for 2 weeks, the member had rated his sleep as of fair to good quality with fair to good daytime alertness and no night awakenings. Furthermore, on one occasion when applicant was late to work he went to the emergency room and reported he had passed out for unknown reasons. After being scheduled for some very expensive medical tests, it was learned the truth was that member had fallen back asleep after the alarm had rang, and he fabricated the story to avoid getting in trouble for being late again. There were no entries in member's medical record while he was in the Air Force to indicate he had muscular dystrophy at that time, or that any medical condition had contributed to his habitual lateness. The DRB opined that through the unit's myriad administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his repetitive, negative behavior. The Board concluded the disciplinary infractions were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members, and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of 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