AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

._.

AME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE-INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
---------------------------------------   ''

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

ISSUES

A94.53

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

l	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

16 Apr 2004

FD-2004-00015

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.

------------------------	----------	--------------- _,('J_·-------------------------4----------, '

SAF/MRBR
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-2004-00015	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, four Letters of Reprimand, eight Records of Individual Counseling, one Letter of Admonishment  for misconduct.   His infractions included nine incidents of failure to go, six incidents of sleeping on duty, two incidents of dereliction of duty, and financial irresponsibility.  The record also disclosed member had difficulty with his Career Development Course, and dress and appearance.
Furthermore, member had an adjustment disorder, was seen several times for intermittent depression, and was admitted to a civilian hospital for same but subsequently refused follow up therapeutic services.  At the time of the discharge, applicant waived his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The DRB opined that through the unit's many administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was either unable or unwilling to do so.  The Board concluded applicant knew right from wrong and was responsible for his actions, and therefore was held accountable for them.
Additionally, existence of a character and behavior disorder does not bar separation for any other authorized reason, such as misconduct, if that reason is more appropriate; a discharge for a mental disorder is not appropriate if the airman's record supports discharge for misconduct, which in this case, it does.  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 appropriate.

Issue 2. The applicant notes the period of time that has passed since his discharge, and infers it supports an upgrade. The DRB noted that while a discharge may be upgraded after 6 months, an upgrade is not automatic. A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge. In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

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.

Inview 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