AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

------------------------------------- ..	x
x x
x
.	x
------------------------------------ ·

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.01 A92.0l A93.07 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

.

A67.10

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

19 Apr 2004	FD-2003-00527

Case heard at Ft. Gillem, GA, via video-teleconference with Andrews AFB, MD.
?'

Advise applicant of the decision of the J3oard, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR .

.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	- - - - - - - - _,)_ - - - - _-_ - - - - - --- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

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

SECRETARY OF mE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCllARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS 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 NUMBER

FD-2003-00527	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Fort Gillem, Georgia, via video-teleconference  with Andrews AFB, MD, on January 22, 2001.

The attached brief contains the 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:

Issue 1.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh, and notes that he was generally a good service member who was close to the end of his enlistment.  The records indicated the applicant received four Letters of Reprimand, seven Records oflndividual Counseling, one Memorandum for Record, two Articles  15, and had an Unfavorable Information File.  There were also four additional documents regarding misconduct.  Applicant's infractions included numerous instances of failing to support his dependent daughter, financial irresponsibility, dereliction of duty, missing scheduled appointments,
dress and appearance violations, failing to return government furniture, and then returning it damaged.  Of his three Enlisted Performance Reports, his final one was a referral "1"noting many performance deficiencies which had not improved after counseling.   Member was also seen at the Mental Health Clinic and the Family Advocacy Program over a 9-month period due to marital and family problems.  Member felt he was treated unfairly because his offenses were minor.  The Board opined that through the unit's  numerous administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to improve his negative
performance and was unable or unwilling to do so.  The Board concluded the extensive misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members, and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was therefore appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends his misconduct was related to his youth, immaturity, low aptitude scores and learning difficulties.  The Board noted that applicant was age 20 to 23 when his misconduct occurred, essentially the same age as other first term airmen who adhere to the standards expected of them and successfully complete their enlistments.  The Board could not substantiate this contention and finds it without merit.

Issue 3.  Applicant notes his former wife had a drug and alcohol problem that adversely impacted the family and thus member's performance also.  The Board recognized that these problems may have contributed to some of his misconduct, but because he was unable to separate those problems from his duties, he became an administrative burden to his unit and a disruptive influence on morale and discipline.  The Board further   did not find that these problems were of sufficient mitigation to explain all of his extensive misconduct, and
thus to warrant an upgrade.