AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

IITIAL)

GRADE

t rrr.; GEN	X	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

YES	N•
x

NAME OFCOONSEL AND Dlt ORG.\NIZA.TION	ADOU:SS AXD OR OllGANIZA.TlON Of COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

ISSUES	A94.53	A67.90

HON

GEN

UOTIIC	OTHER	DENY
x x
x x
x

1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEFOF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIIE BOARD
0

Rl:A.RIN'G  DATI.	

25 Jan 2005	FD-2004-00384

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's reqnest.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504142

S'ICRETAll.Y OF TB.EA.IR FORCIPERSONl'CILCOONCJL
Ala mRO:DlSCllAllGZ 11.EVJf;W BOARD lilS COMMAND DR, If. WING. JRD n.ooa
ANDREWS AFB, MD :Z07U-'790l

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00384	

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared without counsel	.ified bef. re the Discharge Review Board (DRB) at Andrews AFB, MD, on January 25, 2005. His fathalso testified.

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:  The applicant received a general discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, and cited four issues in his application:

Issue 1: Applicant does not believe that he was properly informed of his options when he agreed to accept the discharge. He testified that after his commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge, and recommending that his service be characteriz.ed as general, he assumed that there was no use in fighting this discharge action. The Board noted that the applicant, after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit matters in his own behalf.

Issues 2 & 3: Applicant stated that he felt intimidated, cohersed, and threatened into accepting this discharge, and that he was not guilty of the charge made against him. During his testimony, the applicant acknowledged that these issues were in reference to the Article 15 which he received for sleeping on post, and the Board found these issues to be without merit.

Issue 4: Applicant stated he wishes to reenlist in the Air Force. The DRB was sympathetic that he was unable to do so at this time, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade, change of reason or authority, or change of RE code.

Applicant testified that he was having serious marital problems which resulted in his wife and children leaving him, and that these adversely affected his duty performance.  The DRB was sympathetic to this; however, the Board concluded his misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and one Letter of Admonishment, for misconduct to include failures to go, failure to complete a leave form after having been ordered to do so, tardiness, failures to have CDCs with him on his post after beiilg ordered to do so, and sleeping on post. The DRB opined that through these
administrative actkns, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance report, which was a "fire­ walled" overall 5 rating with numerous laudatory comments; however, they found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal and concluded the discharge was        appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.	

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.

Inview 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 characterization, reason and authority, and reenlistment code should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief