AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

ISJZI- Ill It
TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AB		-     X	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

r ·------------------------------	x
x x x
x
'        --------------------------------
ISSUES

A92.15 AOl.13 A93.19 A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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

27 Feb 2004

FD-2003-00518

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("]_·-- - --	-----J----------------------------- --------------- .'

'

'	'----------------------1

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET	T, 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 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00518	

GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and to change his reenlistment code.

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 and change of reenlistment code are 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. Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. He believes he was not given adequate supervision or assistance overcoming his challenges adjusting to a time change and the use of alcohol as a result of peer pressure. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters  of Reprimand, and three Letters of Counseling for misconduct consisting of sleeping on duty, being late for work twice, failing to go on another occasion, being out of uniform for an extended period of time, being drunk on station resulting in personal injury and being uncooperative with medical personnel. Member was involved in various aspects of the alcohol rehabilitation program from August 1994 to January 1995, including in-patient rehabilitation and a subsequent hospitalization for detoxification at which time his blood alcohol content was .259 and he was diagnosed alcohol dependent. The DRB opined that through these administrative and rehabilitative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unable or unwilling to do so. The Board found nothing to support his claims that his supervisor didn't provide adequate guidance or support, or that the applicant's stressors were in any way unique or unusual compared to other airmen stationed overseas who adhered to the standards expected of them and completed their terms of service without misconduct. The Board concluded applicant's  misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the
characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  The Board found no evidence of mitigation or extenuation to 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