AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

TYPE UOTH

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSl:L AND OR ORGANIZATION

AIC
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
x x x x
x
!-'-----------·········-	-------------

SSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A74.00

I	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

23 Jul 2004	FD-2004-00155

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

--··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ···----- ··----- ··----- ·· --------1

TO:

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 NUfBER

FD-2004-00155	

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

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:	The Board  grants partial relief; the discharge is upgraded  to general (under honorable conditions).

After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by applicant and contained in the records, the Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:
Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant requested a Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-martial. His misconduct included, Charge 1: physically controlling a vehicle while drunk on 5 and 18 May 1999 and Charge 2: overindulgence in intoxicating liquor,  incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties, and wrongfully driving a motor vehicle with suspended driving privileges on 18 May 1999. Further evidence in the record indicated that Charge 2 on the DD Form 458 may not have been valid. While the DRB did not condone the members behavior, the Board concluded that his discharge was overly harsh.

CONCLUSIONS: The DRB concluded 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 a General Discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

: