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 COl-NSEL AND OR ORGA!'ilZATION
1 r :tt1nnr u

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

µ	-- ---···········--------------

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

SSUES

A92.35 A92.21 A93.0l A92.03 A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REV[EW OF mSCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL F[LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00041

Case heard via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, MD, and Randolph AFB, TX.

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

......•.........

L.-l.

	_

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONl'\EL COl;NCIL
AIR  FORCE  DlSCHARGE  REVIE\\1 BOARD 1535 COMMAND  DR, EE \\'ING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS  AFB. MD 2ll 62-i002

--

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

CASE NUl\tBER

FD-2004-00041

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 Randolph AFB, Texas, via video teleconference with Andrews AFB, MD, on November  .

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 1, 3 - 5.  Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  He had seven Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, a Memo for Record, two Articles 15, and a vacation of suspended punishment  documenting misconduct consisting of multiple incidents of dereliction of duty, failure to go, sleeping on post, and misuse of a government computer.  At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement apologizing for his misconduct and requesting to be retained.  Applicant now infers the discharge was too harsh in view of his marital problems at the time and the resultant stress, and his otherwise satisfactory service. He also felt his infractions were isolated and minor in nature, and his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  Neither the record review nor applicant's testimony provided  sufficient merit to applicant's contentions.  Applicant conceded that at that time he and his military spouse had been involved in a couple of domestic incidents, he was unable to cope with military life, and he had lost focus on his duties due to the stress.  Applicant stated he has grown from his mistakes and is not the same person he was at the time of the discharge.  The Board noted applicant was the same age as other airmen who complete their enlistments without any misconduct, and that he knew right from 1>.Tong, and although given many opportunities, he failed to correct his negative behavior.  The Board found insufficient mitigation for his misconduct.  Neither the record nor applicant's testimony offered a basis to substantiate an upgrade or to change his reenlistment code.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, has continued his education, and has a good job.  However, this is not a matter of inequity or improp1iety.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 6.  The applicant cited his desire to reenlist as justification  for upgrade.  While the Board was sympathetic to the impact the reenlistment code was having on the applicant, this also is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would 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/change of reason for discharge, or to change the reenlistment code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment:  Examiner's Brief