AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HE ARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

rYPE GEN

YES	No
x

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.ll
AOl.31

J:ilDEX NUMBER

A67.09

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

A93.07	2	APPLJCA TION 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 DATE	CASE NUMBER

30 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00250

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

-.- •••• ----- •••• ----- •••• ----- •••• ----- ••••• ----- •••• ----- •••• ----- ••• --- ---- •••• ---•.,.-:7•• ----- •••• ----- •••• --- -.

.

'...

TO:

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

FROM:

>--	-!

.·ti'j':lf3UZ2-0lltt
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COU NCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
J 535 COMMAND  DR,  EE  \YING,  3RD  FLOOR ANDREWS  AFB, .VID 20762- 7(102

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NL!\-tBER

FD-2004-00250	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD on 30 November 2004.  No witnesses testified on the applicant's behalf.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Applicant's contentions, 30 Nov 04
Exhibit 6:  Memo for 3-day pass from unit commander, undated
Exhibit 7:  CDC test results, 18 Dec 00 (91%)
Exhibit 8:  Character reference letter, 26 Nov 01, unsigned
Exhibit 9:  Discrimination complaint letter to unit commander from applicant, 31 Mar 01 Exhibit I 0:  Response to referral EPR letter, 27 Feb 01
Exhibit 11: Referral EPR Letter to applicant from rater, 18 Oct 01 Exhibit 12: Rebuttal to 4 May 01 Letter of Reprimand (LOR), 8 May 01
Exhibit 13: Rebuttal to 5 Apr 01 LOR, 8 Apr 01
Exhibit 14: Rebuttal to 26 Mar 01 LOR, 29 Mar 01
Exhibit 15: Referral EPR letter to applicant from rater, 13 Feb 01 Exhibit 16: Response to referral EPR to additional rater, 25 Feb 01

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:

Issue I. Applicant contends that his marital difficulties affected his ability to concentrate on his duties, and resolve his financial responsibilities.  He also contends that his marital difficulties spilled into his relationships with his unit's noncommissioned  officers and commissioned officers further affecting his ability to serve.  The Board concluded that while some of the misconduct revolved around his marital difficulties and provided some extenuation, there was, nonetheless, substantial unrelated misconduct which supported his discharge and characterization of service.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that three of the recorded incidents were incorrect or misconstrued.  In the first incident, the applicant contends that he was improperly reprimanded for a failure to deliver a supply item in  a timely manner.  The DRB accepted his contention and noted that the separation authority had been put on notice that this portion of his LOR had been rescinded.  The DRB also found that the remaining portion of the LOR pertaining to the negligent operation of a government vehicle was still valid.  In the second  incident, the applicant contends that he was improperly reprimanded  for a verbal dispute and cited two witness statements he submitted in response to the LOR.  The DRB acknowledged that the facts with respect to this incident were in dispute but the member's commander, nevertheless, determined that the applicant was involved in the verbal altercation and placed the LOR in the applicant's UIF.  Finally, the applicant contends that he did not violate a no-contact order as stated in his Article 15 action and that the alleged violation was precipitated by his unit's actions in bringing him into contact with the protected individual.	

The DRB found that the applicant, however, failed to present sufficient information to overcome his commander's prior determination.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, the Board also concluded that there was ample minor misconduct to support the discharge and the characterization of the applicant's enlistment as "general," under honorable conditions.

Issue 3.  Applicant contends that the unit which recommended his discharge had a predisposed attitude toward him based upon information forwarded from his first unit of assignment.  The DRB noted that the applicant arrived at his new assignment after having received six records of individual counseling and a
letter of reprimand; that he was verbally counseled by his first sergeant within six days of arriving at his new assignment for being unprofessional, rude, and disrespectful; and that the unit's first sergeant had stated in
an e-mail that the applicant had a long track record of this type of behavior and while his last base couldn't make him a civilian, they provided plenty of ammo to get started. The Board concluded, however, that the unit was not predisposed against the applicant and that the unit continued to attempt to rehabilitate him for approximately eighteen months before recommending discharge.

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