AIR FORCE  DISCHA RGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

J

•	-

-
TYPE  GEN

llTIAL)	G RADE

AB
I	PERSONA L APPEARA NCE	x	I	RECORD REVIE W

C:OUNStl. _---:--       :'liAME OF COUNSEL AriD OR QRGAIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COllNSEL
YES	No
x
'	VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x
-
x
x
-
x	I
-
I	x
ISSUES	A92.21	I NDEX NUM BJ:R	A67.IO	.  .1£XHIBITS SUBMITTED TOTHE  BOARD
A93.0I	I	ORDER  APPOINTING  THE BOARD
A92.0I	2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A94.05	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	      	
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE  TO TH E BOARD
I
ADDITIONAL  EXH IBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF
PERSON1\L APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE   l)MBER

02 Mar 2005	FD-2004-00416
APPtICANPS )SSjJE AND'l'HE BOARI>'-S DECISldNAL- RA'f'lONAL:ARE l)}SCUSSEIY ONlaB ATTACHED AIRFOlfCE'D(SCH f REVIEW BOAR:b DECISIONAL RATIONALE
-     -   :	-	_-,-   -	; ,,- -   "  -" _ :-" ::_ :'  "    -       - -   -,,,   ::.:>)'  --  _->    :	- -      _-	-	-	-
Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

Ad vise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the ri ght to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

-	INDORSEMENT	'

DATE:  3/2/2005	-

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSON!'iEL COLJ'iCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE ttEVIEW BOARP
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFR TX 78150-4742	ADRE\\'S AFB, MD 20762-7002

A FHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous ed ition v,1iH be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUJ\:I BER

FD-2004-00416	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s and one Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The misconduct included possessing alcoholic beverages in student dormitories, providing alcoholic beverages to another airman under the legal drinking age of 21, and consuming alcohol under the age of 21. The ORB 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.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB 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 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 the basis for this case.

Issue 3.  The ORB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the miscond uct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 4.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older  than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.
The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

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