AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
·'

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
, YE_S	N_o---1 .• • • • •• •• • •• •• • •• •• • • • •• • • •  .
x	---------------------------- ·

AB
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
:·-------------------------------------------   ·:
----------------------------------------------- ·

MEMBER SITTING
:.·-----------------------------------

...
-------------------------------------   ·

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

A92.15 AOl.13 A92.37

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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

30 Jul 2004

FD-2004-00072

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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.

-----------------	--	---'	il..11......    -------------------------------------- ;---

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, 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	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00072	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment code.

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 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15 for misconduct, consisting of having a sexual relationship with the wife of another airman, violating a no contact order with the other airman, and driving while intoxicated. Applicant now contends that he did not have a sexual relationship with the female in question, nor did he drive drunk due to his motorcycle being inoperable; he claimed he was pushing it back to base. Nevertheless, the record clearly shows that member admitted his unlawful relationship with the other airman's wife in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his (member's) very lengthy reply to the Article 15. As regards the drinking and driving incident, the Nevada Highway Patrol trooper's report clearly states that he observed member "slow down in front of my patrol vehicle then pull off the roadway . . . . ." Additionally, member spent 2 days in civil confinement incident to this arrest. The DRB opined that through the unit's 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. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this discharge.

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