-I L illll!lllrr •

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

AMN

., m•ii

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSl'i/SSAl'i

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATlON

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TI01\/ OF COL1''SEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93:23

INDEX NUMBER

A67:10

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL 1 S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

15 Sep 2004	FD-2004-00217

Case heard at Washington, O: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 AFBCMK

··············-	--        -····J.....-........LJ.......................................................,

SAFIMRBR

1

550 C STREET WEST  SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB1  TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS   AFB,  MD  20762-7092

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\-1BER

FD-2004-00217	

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: Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Articles 15, three Letters of Reprimand, four Records of Individual Counseling, and a verbal counseling. His misconduct included seven incidents of failure to go, making a false official statement regarding his sexual relationship with a female airman, two instances of dereliction of duty, financial irresponsibility, and a dress and appearance violation. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel  and submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting an honorable discharge. Applicant now contends he was suffering from stress. While it is understandable that a member experiencing personal problems has additional stress, member has not provided evidence as to what his problems or resultant stressors were or how they were unique. Furthermore, there is little evidence he sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain, family support center, or his chain of command; there is only one note in his medical record regarding a visit to the mental health clinic due to occupational stressors. In view of the unit's many actions, member had ample opportunities to come within expected standards of conduct. He was either unable or unwilling to correct his behavior. The Board could not find any mitigation or extenuation to warrant an upgrade, and the records review disclosed no inequity or impropriety.

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