AFSN/SSAN
a r m•

TYPE GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

YES

x

x

x

ISSUES A92.21 A93.01 A94.05

3

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

4

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

11.11.1.s•-···--
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
No
x
MEMBER SITTING

GRADE

AIC

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

••••11m•r;1 11

x

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

1
2

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD-

-----

-

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

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

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

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET

,  UITE 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-2004-00171	

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

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 21, 2004.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the	•; .n .S
Exhibit 5: Character letter dated March 18, 2004 from	I
Exhibit 6: Character letter dated March 24, 2004, fromt.	. Wsl llllt
Exhibit 7:  Character letter dated October 19, 2004, from

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  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, and that his chain of command pressured him to accept the discharge. The records reflect the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance after being eliminated from two different technical training programs.
Additionally, he had received two Articles 15, and a Record of Individual Counseling, all for alcohol-related incidents.  The record disclosed that applicant 's commander attempted to afford member a third retraining opportunity; while that was being worked, member had his third incident, which apparently caused reconsideration about his retention.  A separation versus retention and retraining package was then processed and the decision authority determined separation to be the most appropriate action, after which the administrative discharge package was initiated.  At that time applicant waived his right to consult counsel or to submit statements in his own behalf.  Thus the Board found applicant 's contention that he was pressured
to accept the discharge to be without merit as he didn 't avail himself of the procedures provided him to reply to the discharge.  The DRB opined that through the extensive administrative actions taken to retain member after his first two technical school eliminations, the applicant had ample opportunities to succeed in the Air Force.  Because the purpose of the airman retraining program is to retrain members whose behavior, attitude, and record of performance show a high probability of success in subsequent duty assignments, his chain of command apparently eventually reached the conclusion he didn 't meet those criteria.  Additionally, the
Board concluded applicant's misconduct was a significant enough departure from conduct expected of all military members to warrant the characterization of discharge applicant received, and found it appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 22 years of age when the discharge took place, as old as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to Air Force's standards of conduct.  And, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  Thus the DRB concluded that the characterization  of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to his misconduct.	

Issue 3. Applicant infers the discharge was inequitable pecause his chain of command did not give him an opportunity to learn from his mistakes and be retained. [he Board notes the discharge regulations clearly gave his chain of command authority to recommend administrati vely discharging him based on unsuitability for further military service. Facts and circumstances an different in each action and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, a commander must con$ider how a member's retention might affect good order, discipline, and morale, and also factors such as th member's age, length of service, grade, aptitude, and the standards of acceptable conduct and perforrnanc . Administrative separation is an action that severs the military status of an individual and characterizes his service. All required procedures to do so were properly followed in the applicant 's case.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board co.-icludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discha ge 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 con Judes 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

..