AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
"IAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
CAPT	LIEMI!!
TYPE UOTH	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL ANO OR ORGANIZATION	AOORESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUfS

A94. 11
A93.19 A94.05 A94.43 A93.09

JNOEX NUMBER

A80.00

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  OATE	CASE NUMBER

01 Sep 2004	FD-2004-00190

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant 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.

------------------- ----------- -----------·-'--------------------------------------------------------- '

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

SECRETARY Ol' TlIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AUi. FORCE OISCllARGE REVIEW BOARO
1535 COMMANO OR, EE WING, 3Rl> FLOOR ANOREWS  AFB, MO l076l-70(ll

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

:'-

.----	-.--C-ASE·N_L_I M_B_E_R	----.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE

FD2004-00190

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general (under honorable conditions).

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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 is denied. ISSUES:
Issue l . Applicant tendered his resignation in lieu of court martial. Characterization of service under these circumstances is customarily under other than  honorable  conditions.  The  applicant's  records  document clear evidence of conduct totally incompatible with military service. He had a letter of reprimand  (LOR) for an unprofessional relationship with an enlisted female. Court martial charges were brought against him for two specifications of derelictlon of duty, violating a general order, four specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, and two specifications of fraternization. These charges arose out of the following incidents. While deployed to Southwest Asia (SWA), he was commander of troops for a morale trip to Bahrain. Contrary to his orders, he consumed alcohol with his subordinate enlisted personnel and allowed them to become  intoxicated. He also engaged in inappropriate public physical contact with two female enlisted subordinates. After receiving his LOR cited above for a separate incident, he yet again engaged in similar inappropriate behavior with a female enlisted subordinate.  In the last incident, member led a group of six enlisted members (five his subordinates) to a party at a contractor compound where alcohol  was served. Contrary to a general order, he consumed alcohol, became intoxicated, and encouraged several of his subordinates to do the same. He then failed to follow his commander's guidance to notify the command post if his group would not return to base by midnight. As a consequence, all of those enlisted personnel who consumed alcohol received Articles 15 that adversel y impacted their careers. This had a detrimental impact on morale, welfare, and discipline of the deployed unit. Applicant now infers the actions taken were too harsh because his chain of command was on a "witch hunt" and trying to make an example of him. He also claimed the senior enlisted manager was ''undermining" him. The Board  found  these  contentions without merit. The orders and policies that member violated were very clearly stated and the evidence of record that he committed the offenses was unequivocal. The record did not provide any evidence that for the offenses for which charged, member was singled out. Nor did  applicant offer specific evidence that each of his infractions was a result of arbitrary and capricious acts by his chain of command or personality conflicts with the senior enlisted manager.

Issue 2. Applicant contends he should have been given treatment for an alcohol problem after his BAC following the final incident revealed a problematic level of .19. Unfortunately, applicant's medical records were unavailable to the Board for review, so it could not be ascertained whether he was offered treatment or counseling, or not, and if so, what type. Nevertheless,  individuals who commit  acts of misconduct under the influence of alcohol are still held accountable for those actions, and so, this contention offers no basis on which to justify an upgrade.

Issue 3. Applicant notes he was having personal difficulties at the time he was notified of the deployment and was not pleased about being selected for the trip. The applicant failed to clearly demonstrate however how this stress was the cause for each of his incidents of misconduct. While it is understandable that a member experiencing personal problems has additional stress, the applicant's problems were not unique.

Nor was there evidence he sought ass)stance from available base agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center, or the Mental Health staff to assist him in cop1ng with the stress. Thus the Board finds this issue of insufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade.

In summary, the Secretary of the Air Force's designee, who was aware of the option to approve an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, determined that an under other than honorable conditions characterization was more appropriate due to the seriousness and repetitive, deteriorating  nature  of member's misconduct No inequity or impropriety was found in th1s discharge in the course of the records review.

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