AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BORD

M EM BER SITTI NG

'

--------------------------------
'

'    --------------------------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.0I

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED .1'dT1*EBOf\.
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE COUNSEL'S  R ELEASE  TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

10 Feb 2004

FD-2003-00548

APPLICANTS ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Ad vise appl icant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR.

i---------------"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	.>-
'

TO:

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

INDQRSEMENT	DATE:. 2/tll2otlt'   ·.
FROM:
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 ed ition will be used

appl icant's d ischarge characterization. The Board concl uded the appl icant's miscond uct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all m i l itary mem bers, that he was given am ple opportun ities to change his negative behavior, and that the characterization of the d ischarge received by the appl icant was fou nd to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concl udes t hat the d ischarge was consistent with the proced ural and substantive requ irements of the d ischarge regu l ation and was with in the d iscretion  of the d ischarge authority  and  that the appl icant was provided  fu ll adm in istrative d ue process.

In view of the foregoi ng find i ngs the Board further concl udes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of d ischarge, thus the applicant's d ischarge shou ld not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00548	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for u pgrade of d ischarge to Honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenl istment code.

The applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Boa rd ( DR B) on I 0 February 2004 at And rews Air Force Base, Maryland. The appl icant's father, Capta i n :-·- --- -- --- -- ----- --; U n ited States Coast Guard, appeared as a witness and counsel on behalf of the appl icant.	--- -- --- -- --- -- --- --

The attached  brief contai ns ava i l able perti nent data on the appl icant and the factors leading to the d ischarge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of d ischarge, change of reason and authority for d ischarge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provi ded  by the appl icant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that wou ld justify a change of d ischarge.

ISSUE: Appl icant contends  an  impropriety  was committed  i n  the processing  of his d ischarge,  because  he was not given guidance as to the [adverse] im pact h is decision to waive  h is right to provide a written statement or to consult an attorney wou ld have on the outcome of h is case. The appl icant also contends "no one discussed probation  and rehabilitation issues" with hi m and that he "was not given enough time to learn from h is mistakes." Add itionally, the applicant pointed out he was "fit and enthusiastic" at the  time  he   began  h is  Security  Forces  training  program. However, after sufferi ng an injury  to  h is  left  an k le,  a  fracture  of the  left  d istal  fibu la, the  appl icant's  duties  were mod ified and he was subseq uently reassigned to a fl ight of mem bers who suffered physica l  or mental  health  ailments that precl uded performance of thei r norma l duties. It was d uri ng this period of time, in wh ich the applicant alleges he observed his classmates grad uate and depart for thei r un its of assignment, that his morale took a turn for the worse and that he began  to succumb to peer pressure, or words to t hat effect.  Subseq uentl y, the applicant committed  several acts of miscond uct that resu lted i n four Letters of Repri mand and one Letter  of  Counseling  for  a  failed  dormitory inspection, failure to go, lying to a noncomm issioned officer, and two instances of u nderage alcohol consumption. Nonetheless, the appl icant contends that a l I of the d isci pl inary responses  resu lting  111  his  discharge  were "administrative" i n  nature.  However,  although  either nonjud icial  pu nishment  or a court-martial  was a viable  option to the applicant's commanders, there is no req u irement t hat these forums be uti l ized prior to initiation of  involuntary separation. In any event, pu rsuant to A FI 36-3208, paragraph 5.2.3., "alleged or establ ished inadeq uacy in previous rehabilitative efforts does not provide a bar to separation." With  reference  to  the  applicant's  contention  he  was improperly advised surround ing the ramifications of not submitting matters on  his  own  behalf  or  to  consult  legal counsel, the case fi le contains substantial evidence that the applicant was indeed advised of these rights and waived his opportunity to consu lt counsel and h is right to  subm it  matters.  In  response  to  the  appl icant's  contention  his commander d id not fol low establ ished pol icy in not explai n ing further h is recom mendation against probation and rehabilitation, the Board finds the com mander's al leged inadeq uacy  in  explaini ng  h is  reasons  for  recommend ing against  probation   and  rehabi l itation  does  not  amou nt  to  an  ineq u ity  or  impropriety  warranting  an  upgrade  of  the