AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

	._...
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

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 A93.0l

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

I	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

08 Sep 2004	FD-2003-00539

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.

,-------------------------------------         ---------------------------------------------------------------------,
'

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  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-2003-00539	

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, 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,   change  of  reason   and   authority   for  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.

Issue I . Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, six Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, and had an Unfavorable Information File for misconduct. His infractions included multiple incidents of failure to go, failure to obey orders, driving under the influence of alcohol while intoxicated (DUI), using profanity and obscene gestures toward government contractors in the performance of their duties, failing to follow technical order data, and driving on base while under revocation. Applicant does not deny these incidents and attributes them to stupidity. Additionally, the member was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder as well as alcohol abuse, and underwent an in-patient rehabilitation program; he had his DUI just 8 months after completing the program. And his final failure to go, 6 months after the DUI, was for not showing up for one of his Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Program Treatment (ADAPT) appointments.  The DRB opined that through the unit's 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 applicant's discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, this does not suggest an inequity or impropriety in his discharge and does not offer a basis on which to warrant an upgrade.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3. The applicant cited his desire to return to military service. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact applicant's discharge has had on this aspiration, it is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade either.

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