- .
AIR FORCE DISCHA RG E REVIEW BOARD HEA R ING R ECORD

-NA.1\1£-OF SER-V I CE -'1EJ\J BER (LAST, FI RST' 11DDLE Il\JTIA L) 	

G R.A.DE	A FSN/SSAI\

'

I	A M N	1• I

;TYPE GEN

I	PERSONA L  A PPE

-
A RANCE

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW	I

COUNSEL	i\AME OF  COlJ.'\lS[L  _.\ t'O  OR  ORGA"l!ZATION	ADDRESS  A"iD OR ORGA NIZA  flOI\  OF COl'l"--SEL
YlS	No
x

MEMBER   SITTING	1-	r	l

VOTE OF THE BOARD	I
-	- ' "       .
I	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x	!	I
I
x x x x
ISSUES	A93.02	I N DEX NUMBER	A67.10	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO Tll.E BOARD
l	ORDER APPOlNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATIO:-J
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FI LE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE  TO THE  BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXH IBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSON.AL  i\ PPEARA_NCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSON1\ L A PPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

15 Jul 2005	FD-2005-00016
APPLICANTS lSSLl_E AND lHE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIOAL ARE DJSCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DlSCHARGE.REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board.

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

I	/"' )

l"IDORSEMENT		DATE: 711412005 	
+---------	- ---	-	-
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE\V BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAl\'D OR, EE \VING, lRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFR.  TX  781504742	A NDREWS AFB, M D 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCH ARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\1BER

FD-2005-0001 6	

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:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon  the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest his discharge, he states that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity and that his Article 15 was an isolated offense. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for supplying alcohol to underage military members on two separate occasions. He also received a Letter of Reprimand for reporting to duty while intoxicated. The DRB recognized  the applicant was a month shy of 22 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. However, the Board was impressed with the honesty displayed in the applicants' letter to the Board and the fact that he is currently a Sergeant (E-5) in the US Marine Corps where he excelled as an NCO and is continuing his education. Although the Board did not condone the applicant's misconduct, they opined that the discharge should be upgraded to Honorable. Applicant had Letters of Appreciation as well as  several  character references to include but not limited to a Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, and First Lieutenant citing his exemplary performance as an NCO and his leadership abilities. He served with distinction and honor while facing extreme hardship during combat operations and received a Meritorious Mast for his actions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Applicant's outstanding achievements while serving in the US Marine  Corps (post-Air Force) are indicative that his overall service is more accuratel y reflected by an Honorable discharge.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.	

Attachment: Examiner's Brief