'"'.,,.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGA!\IZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
A I G	lf'Y Ul 7 7
RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
1 11 m rr•n •••	1tar , 11•• 11rn

YES	No
x

-------------------------

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC      OTHER
x x x x x

DENY

ISSUES

A94,06 A92.22

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TJON
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 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00058

Case heard at Randolph AFB, TX, via video-teleconference  with Andrews AFB, MD.

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

--------------------------	------------------------------------------------------------------	.i--	-1

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSOJ'iNEL  COUNOL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVlEW  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 NUM BER

FD-2004-00058	

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

The applicant  appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) with counsel, H id fl f $ I I lll zi?]"lllM!S"f'll 11"•     a at Randolph AFB, TX, via video-teleconference  with Andrews AFB, MD, on November  16, 2004.   1&11   ]]   l' , a friend and former Air Force enlisted member, also
testified.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization of discharge inequitable.

ISSUE:  The applicant received a general discharge for misconduct (minor disciplinary infractions) and cited two issues:

Issue I . Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The ORB concurred and noted that the records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling during his almost 28 months of active duty, and only one, the Article 15 for underage drinking for which the applicant took full responsibility, was of a somewhat egregious nature.  The Letter of Counseling was for failure to have all items required for his personal mobility bag, yet testimony and documents in the record revealed that he was not singled out for this in that his entire mobility team received LOCs which were never intended to be a part of anyone's PIF.  One of the LORs was for sponsoring a party at his off-base residency that lead to the consumption of alcohol by at least two underage members of his squadron.  The Board noted that the LOR contained the following comments by his commander "the results of questioning you and many other witnesses brings me to conclude that you and your roommates had good intentions of having a controlled environment to celebrate the millennium which included designated drivers and a cursory attempt to advise those under 21 not to consume alcohol", and testimony and documents in the record supported the fact that the applicant did everything within his control to prohibit underage drinking.
The other LOR was for failure to report personal knowledge of marijuana use by others in the wing and for being personally implicated in the use of marijuana by other Air Force members.  The Board noted that the applicant had never been formally charged with the use of marijuana and testimony and the record showed that the applicant had no first hand knowledge of marijuana use within the wing and completed four urinalysis screenings during this period which were all negative for any form of narcotics. The records also contained documentation of his being recognized as a Top Performer during his Security Police training, an Air Force Achievement Medal while in a deployed environment, and one EPR with an overall five rating and	

numerous laudatory comments.

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.  He has been working full time since his discharge and testified that he was recently hired by the Department of Homeland Security. He has been attending school and recently earned an Associates degree with a 3.8 GPA. He is currently pursuing a BA degree on an academic scholarship.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief