AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST  llDDLE INITIAL)

GR4DE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC
x

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

;t'.ti1     AME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

A93.19 A92.21 A92.0l

[ DEX NUMBER

A67:90

l	ORDER APPOJNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

A92.07 A92.03 A93.07 A92.05 A92.11 A93.09

3	LETTER OF NOTJFJCATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE  BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHJBJTS  SUBMITTED AT TIME  OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE

CASE NUMBER

14 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00271

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.

I\
...-----....-----...-••--.·------....) _ -../}_ ---,._ ..(./.1_ ....-----....-----....-----....-----....-----.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COJ\fMAND DR, EE "YING. 3RD FLOOR ANDRE\\'S 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-2004-00271	

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

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 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.

Issues 1 through 5. 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 and three Letters of Reprimand for misconduct. His infractions included having a dog in the dormitory after a direct order not to, being involved in a verbal and physical altercation
at the dormitory wherein he used provoking speech and gestures and pushed another airman, failure to go, neglectfully dropping a government-owned DVD player valued at $1399.44 down a stairwell causing it to be damaged, and striking a civilian female in the face with his fist. The DRB opined that through the unit's 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 of recommendation 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 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 to warrant an upgrade and none was found in the course of the records review. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issues 7 through I 0. Applicant contends his duty performance was adversely impacted by marital, child care, personal problems, his use of alcohol, and a denied request for compassionate reassignment.
Unfortunately, applicant failed to provide any documented evidence to substantiate these various contentions and the records review failed to identify any. The Board concluded 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.

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