AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
MAJ	
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl7'.ATJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.l l A93.23 A92. 15 A92.21 A02.21

INDEX NUMllER

AS0.00

1	ORDER APPOTNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	RRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIRJTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMllER

09 Sep 2004

FD-2004-00238

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  COUNCll. AIR f'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 2076l"7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00238	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change his reenlistment code.

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: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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 tendered his resignation in lieu of further administrative discharge proceedings. The applicant's records document clear evidence of conduct totally incompatible with military service. He had multiple incidents of failure to go, making false official statements, absenting himself from his unit without authority, and was twice drunk while enrolled in an alcohol rehabilitation program. All of these incidents occurred within a 10-month period, the last two while in an alcohol rehabilitation program, as noted. It is Air Force policy that personnel who do not respond favorably to rehabilitation be considered for separation. Additionally, the applicant's misconduct was of a very serious nature and members who commit acts of misconduct, even under the influence of alcohol, are held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, the number of incidents of this severity would normally result in a service characterization of under other th<m	

honorable, but mitigati ng factors were taken into consideration at the time of the discharge.  Member had ·· served admirably for over 6 years before his misconduct began.  Circumstances of his alcoholism, while not excusing his conduct, were also viewed as mitigating.  Thus accepting his resignation allowed his service to  be appropriately characterized.  Accordingly, the Secretary of the Air Force's designee, who was aware of the option to  approve an honorable  discharge,  determined  that  a general  discharge  (under honorable conditions) was more appropriate due to the seriousness and repetitive, deteriorating nature of member's misconduct. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Issue 2. Applicant contends discharge was improper and inequitable because it was too harsh. He contends
his chain of command failed to properly recognize and treat his depression because discharging him was more "convenient." Applicant claims his commander overreacted to his (member's) disappointing behavior and wanted to minimize complaints and "placate" staff members by discharging hi m instead of treating him, thus an abuse of command authority. The commander remained un-persuaded to take another course of action. 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 for his claimed depression, or not, and if so, what type. Nevertheless, individuals who commit acts of misconduct under the influence of alcohol and I or depression, are still held accountable for those actions. The record did not provide any substantive evidence that member was singled out. Nor did applicant offer specific evidence that each of his infractions was a result of arbitrary and capricious acts or personality conflicts. The DRB opined that through the unit's extensive rehabilitative actions, and member's multiple involvements in various alcohol rehabilitation programs, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling or unable to do so. The Board concluded his repeated misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 3.  The discharge regulations clearly gave his chain of command authority to recommend administratively discharging him based on unsuitability for further military service as a result of his serious misconduct.  Facts and circumstances are different in each action and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.  In doing so, a commander must consider the seriousness of the misconduct and how a member's retention might affect good order, discipli ne, and morale, not just the member's past record of service or rehabilitative potential.  They must focus on conduct during the current period of service, and also consider factors such as the member's age, length of service, grade, aptitude, and the standards of acceptable conduct and performance.   The regulation provides for circumstances wherein a single incident of misconduct may provide the basis for characterizi ng service.  It should be noted that administrative separation is an action that severs the military status of an individ ual and characterizes his service, but is not the same as punishment rendered by a civilian judici al proceeding or a punitive discharge rendered by a court martial.
Commission of several serious offenses clearly established applicant's unsuitability for further Air Force service.  All required procedures were properly followed in the applicant's case.

Issue 4. Applicant notes he was having personal difficulties resolving ethics he had learned in his legal education and while serving as a Staff Judge Advocate, and those being taught in his medical education program. 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 did not appear to be unique. Nor was there evidence he sought assistance from available base agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center, or the Mental Health staff to assist him in coping with this stress. Thus the Board finds this issue of insufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade.

Issue 5.  Applicant states that his discharge did not adequately take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty perfomrnnce as documented by his performance reports, letters ofrecommendation  and other accomplishments.   The Board further noted that member's
many laudatory accomplishments during his career had in fact been considered before final decision was rendered as to characterization of his service.  The DRB recogni zed the fact that the applicant had served over 7 years total service before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the seriousness of the misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance, then and now.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis.

Issue 6 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  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 on which to justify an upgrade, nor was one found in the course of the records review.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

If he can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issues, the applicant should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If he should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity or impropriety and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any other contributions to the community.

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 appl icant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment:  Examiner's Brief