AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
	
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	A67.30

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

12 May 2004

FD-2004-00043

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---J---"'---------,'
'

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET W	, 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

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00043

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 discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15, four Letters of Reprimand, and a Record oflndividual Counseling for misconduct.  His infractions included dress and appearance violations, speeding on base, writing bad checks on and off base, failure to go, and two consecutive driving while intoxicated offenses in a 2-month period, one on base and one off base.  As a result of the second one, he spent 20 days in the county jail.   Member failed to respond to the written disciplinary actions, and at the time of the discharge, consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The DRB opined that through these 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 the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well. However, because no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the record review, the Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3. Applicant infers that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was as old as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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