.•

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB	
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ.A TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------+----+-----+-----t------j	1
x
x x x
x
''     ----------------------------------- '·

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.09

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 PERSON.:..L APPEARANCE

-------

-+-------------------+-

,r-------------------- ---

HEARING  DAU'.	CASE NUMBER

26 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00201

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 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-2004-00201	

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

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.

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.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Member received an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, two Letters of Counseling, a Letter of Reprimand, and pursuant to his guilty pleas, was convicted by Summary Court Martial for various acts of misconduct. His offenses included driving while intoxicated, underage alcohol consumption, breaking base restriction on two occasions, multiple incidents of failure to go, and failing to maintain his dormitory room within standards. At the time of court martial, member entered into a Pre-Trial Agreement which kept his proceeding in the Summary Court arena, and in which he also agreed to unconditionally waive his right to	

an administrative discharge board if later recommended for discharge with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) separation. He was in fact recommended for a UOTHC, and in spite of unconditional waiver of his right to a board hearing, he requested the convening authority consider characterizing his service as general, under honorable conditions. That request was granted. Applicant now notes he used poor judgment and made mistakes while in the service. The board noted he was age 18 to 19 when his misconduct occurred, essentially the same age as other airmen who complete their enlistments without disciplinary infractions, and there was no evidence he did not know right from wrong. Member had the opportunity to change his negative behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so. Therefore, the Board found the record supports the characterization of service received.

Issue 2 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young and notes his achievements since leaving the service. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. However, this does not provide a basis of inequity or impropriety during his period of service that warrants an upgrade. The Board concluded applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

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