AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE
AIC
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA UON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
- - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - -------------------l-

HON

-l-

GEN  -+

UOTHC +-O-THER-+-D-E-NY -1
x
x
x
x
x

ISSll!S

A93.19 A92.19 A94.05

IND.f.X NUMBl:R

A67.30

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
1	
A94.43
3	
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
1	

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

IUARING DATf.	CASE NUMBl:R

18 Ort 2004	FD-2004-00093

Case heard via video teleconference between Travis AFB, CA and Andrews AFB, MD.

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

---..\

------------------ --------···--------	-------------------------------------------------------;

SOCRETAk\' OJ THE AIR FORCI l'l.RSONNt:L COVMCIL
A.	IR FORCI: DlSCllAkC-£ 1£\'UW BOA.RJ> l:SJS COMMAND DR, IEWING,lRD FLOOR ANDREWS AH,MD 107'2-TOGl

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-2004-00093

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge  Review Board without counsel, via video­ teleconference between Travis AFB, CA and Andrews AFB, MD on October 18, 2004.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 5: Character statement dated October 13, 2004 from Mrs JH, applicant's spouse Exhibit 6: Character statement dated October 11, 2004 from Mr. RD
Exhibit 7: Character statement dated October 6, 2004, from Ms. JK Exhibit 8: Character statement dated October 13, 2004 from Reverend CC

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

FINDINGS:	Upgrade  of  discharge,  change  of  reason  and  authority  for  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 I. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated that pursuant to his guilty plea, the applicant was convicted at Summary Court Martial for theft of $372.00 from his unit's private organization funds, of which he was treasurer. Additionally, applicant had several  instances of failure to pay just debts, failure to maintain vehicle insurance, driving with expired license  plates, and having his driver's license suspended, then revoked. The DRB concluded that applicant did commit a very serious offense, about which he lied when first confronted. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. At the time of the  offense, applicant was age 24 and 25, and there was no evidence he was immature or didn't know right from wrong, thus he was held accountable for his actions. 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. Applicant noted he had a problem with routine overindulgence in alcoholic beverages, a situation he felt his chain of command should have noted and assisted him with. Yet, he concedes that he exhibited no signs by which his chain of command might have recognized his problem, nor did applicant himself seek assistance from any base agencies such as the chapel, Mental Health clinic, or Family Support Center. The Board recognizes that while alcohol may have adversely impacted applicant's behavior, individuals who commit acts of misconduct under the influence of alcohol are still held accountable for those actions. The applicant's present recovery is commendable but does not mitigate the actions that led to his discharge.

Issue 3. Applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because his chain of command did not give him  an opportunity to learn from his mistakes and be retained to finish his period of service. The Board notes the discharge regulations clearly gave his chain of command authority to recommend administratively discharging him based on unsuitability for further military service as a result of his serious misconduct.
Facts and circumstances are different in each action and must be iudged on a case-by-case basis. In doing

so, a commander must consider the seriousness of the misconduct and how a member's retention might affect good order, discipline, and morale, not just the member's past record of service or rehabilitative
potential.  They must focus on conduct during the current period of service, and also consider factors such as the member's age, length of service, grade, aptitude, and the standards of acceptable conduct and performance.  The regulation provides for circumstances wherein a single incident of misconduct may provide the basis for characterizing service.  It should be noted that administrative separation is an action
that severs the military status of an individual and characterizes his service, but is not the same as punishment rendered by a civilian judicial proceeding or a punitive discharge rendered by a court martial. Commission of several serious offenses clearly established applicant's unsuitability for further Air Force service. All required procedures were properly followed in the applicant's case.

The applicant noted his desire to return to military service. While the Board commends applicant on this aspiration, it is not a matter of equity or propriety with regard to his discharge and docs not provide a basis that warrants an upgrade.

CONCJ,USIONS: 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