•.	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE ME:l1BER (LAST, FIRST :111DDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AIC
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL A:'liD OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGA:-tlZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HOJ\1	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

.AOl.13 A92.21 A93.07 A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

! I	ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVTEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TA.PE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARA."f\JCE

REARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00373

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.

·----- ··----- ··-	---·---- -----..<0\..£......	-----····-----····-----····-----····-----····-----····-;

SAF/MRBR
550 C STRE ET WEST, SUITE 40 RAN DOLPH AFB. TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSON EL COUNCIL
AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\'\' BOARD 1535 COMMA!\! 0 DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7ll02

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00373	

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:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct, discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities.  The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand, and was arrested three times by civilian authorities for misconduct.  He had also had an Unfavorable Information File, had been placed on the Control Roster, and had a promotion deferral.  His only Enlisted Performance Report was rated an overall referral "2" and chronicled his contempt for authority and failure to follow instructions and orders.  His infractions included abuse of a government vehicle after advised to use it only for official business, driving on a suspended license after expressly told not to, and abusing a dormitory telephone to make long distance calls at government expense and then failing to admit it until more than 3 months later when investigation was about to reveal his involvement.  Additionally, his civilian arrests involved public intoxication, assault and battery, and communicating threats to his estranged spouse after a protective order had been issued.  Applicant now notes that none of the latter incidents were "proven in a court oflaw" and the "courts dismissed all charges."  Nevertheless, member was discharged on the basis of his aberrant, volatile behavior.  Because he was a Security Forces officer, he was unable to continue to bear arms or perform his duties in view of his behavior and its risks.  His misconduct disrupted the good order and discipline of his unit and the civilian community.  The legal review of the discharge notes that such
discharge need not be based exclusively on civilian convictions to be appropriate.  The chain of command  felt that based on his misconduct in an earlier assignment, coupled with his multiple arrests by civilian authorities for well documented problematic behavior, discharge was the best course of action.  Additionally,	

member was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder so severe it interfered with his ability to perform his military duties, yet did not rise to the level of warranting a medical separation.  And while administrative discharge based on this personality disorder was contemplated, it was not appropriate due to the seriousness of member's misconduct.   The DRB opined that through the military administrative actions and civilian arrests, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior and was unwilling or unable to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and it was appropriate to sever member's military status due to his unsuitability for further military service.  Based on his misconduct, the characterization of the discharge was appropriate.

Issue 2 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 is not a matter of inequity or impropriety in his discharge, and none was suggested or found in the course of the record review.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 3.  Applicant noted he was going through a difficult period in his life, with his mother's terminal illness and death, and a divorce.  While it is understandable that a person in such circumstances experiences additional stress, applicant failed to demonstrate how his circumstances were unique or unusual, or more distressing than those of similarly situated airmen who complete their terms of enlistment without misconduct.  Applicant also failed to demonstrate that he sought assistance for his additional stress through
available base agencies such as the chaplaincy, Family Support Center, Mental Health Clinic, or his chain of command.  Thus the Board found these issues of insufficient mitigation or extenuation to warrant an  upgrade.

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