•	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD
•	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSNISSAN

SRA
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA T!ON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

--------------------------------------   ·

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.15 A92.21 A92.01 A92.03

INDEX  NUMBER

A67.30

I	ORDER APPOfNTING THE BOARD
2	APPUCATION 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 RECORDfNG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DA TE	CASE Nl'MBER

08 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00293

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.

------ -----------------------------	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO'

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET W	T, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSON:'llEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE "YING, 3RD FLOOR A:"DREWS AFB, .'HD 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-2004-00293	

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 applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues 5 and 6.  Applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense.  During the enlistment under review, he had two Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and an Article 15, all for alcohol-related misconduct.  He was found drunk on duty and was driving drunk when his blood alcohol content was .306.  Member admitted to drinking almost an entire bottle of peppermint schnapps in the parking lot of his duty section             before returning to work to eat his lunch.  Member was previously counseled by his unit in an effort to help him correct his deficiencies and had ample opportunity to improve his behavior.  He failed to respond to previous rehabilitative efforts, so he was held accountable for his actions. Additionally, member had a history of alcohol-related misconduct in previous enlistments, including two previous drunk driving
offenses and a drunk and disorderly incident on base at the noncommissioned officer club.  He was previously administratively demoted and put on the Control Roster due to his alcohol-related misconduct. Member was diagnosed alcohol dependent and twice went through alcohol rehabilitation programs, once in­ patient, and once outpatient.  At the time of the discharge, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative board hearing conditioned upon receipt of an honorable discharge.  When that was rejected he submitted an unconditional waiver of his right to a board hearing, and submitted a statement in his own behalfrequesting retention.  Applicant now cites his positive accomplishments during his nearly  15 years of service, to include awards, decorations, positive performance reports, and overseas deployment.
The Board noted however that in spite of many efforts over his career to help member correct his deficiencies, he was not motivated enough to conform to standards and his miscond uct continued.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis. Thus, no inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Issues 1 - 4 apply 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.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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