AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AIC
X	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

;"fA!'dE OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.0S

INDEX NUMBER

A67.SO A66.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION 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

13 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00327

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/withont counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

1----------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---·----- --------- ------------------1

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND  DR,  EE WING,  JRD  FLOOR ANDREWS 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 NUJ\1BER

FD-2004-00327	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and change the 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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that he was not afforded legal council. The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5 s and three Letters of Reprimand for various misconduct to include drug abuse by wrongfully inhaling aerosol propellant. The applicant's contention that he did not receive legal council is without merit. The record clearly shows that the applicant consulted council when both Article l 5 s were administered and again when he was notified of the commander's recommendation to discharge him. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded the 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.

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