. . . '

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AlC	u 1na
x	RECORD  REVIEW

_.....    ..	.
, NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x	- '

ISSUES

A92.l 5 A92.35 A93.07 A93.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

l	ORDER APPOINTf NG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW  OF DISC.HARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
2	
A93.29	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
14 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00270	' .

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
RANDOLPH AF

SECRETARY  OF TllE AIR  FORCE PERSON EL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RE\'1EW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR. EE "'L G, JRD FLOOR ANDRE"'S Al'"B, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077,  JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition 1,-vill be used

.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE J\'UMBER

FD-2004-00270	
GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable,  to change the reason and authority for his 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 the 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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, a Letter of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, and a Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct. His infractions included three instances of failure to go, failing to pay just debts, dereliction of duty, and wrongfully do'Wnloading pornographic materials on his government computer. At
the time of the discharge., applicant waived his right to consult counsel, submit statements on his own behalf, and waived his right to an administrative board hearing conditioned on receipt of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, which is what he received. The DRB opined that through the unit's several administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling or unable to do so. The DRB also took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters ofrecommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of his willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's otherwise satisfactory duty performance. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant contends his duty performance was adversely impacted by marital, financial, medical and personal problems, and the resultant stress, and failure of his chain of command to offer him appropriate counseling or assistance. Unfortunately, applicant failed to provide any documented evidence to substantiate these various contentions and the records review failed to identify any. The Board concluded that the disciplinary actions taken were given in an attempt to rehabilitate member, and since his infractions occurred over a 21-month period, he had sufficient time to improve. Additionally, there was no evidence member sought assistance from available base agencies such as the chaplaincy, family support center, or mental
health clinic. Thus there was insufficient evidence to evaluate the merits of applicant's alleged mitigating factors. The Board found the discharge procedurally proper and equitable, and no change warranted.

Issue 3. Applicant noted his offenses were minor. The record reflects applicant's offenses were numerous and well documented, and supported the characterization of service received.

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