AIR FORC'F ,_.	URGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
ITIAL)

TYPE GEN	X

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

YFS	No	
x		

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.01 A92.03 A94.05 A93.21

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIF!CATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDffiONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

07 Jul 2005

CASE NlJMBER.

FD-2005-00054

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00054	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 07 Jul 2005.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #6: E-mail communication dated June 22, 2005 between applicant and counsel Exhibit #7: Unofficial college transcript (during enlistment)
Exhibit #8: College transcript (post service)

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: The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh due to otherwise good conduct, and unequal treatment due to a medical condition. During testimony he also contended he was immature at the time and cited good post service conduct.

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  Applicant contends that he was treated harshly as the result of resentment engendered by a medical problem that prevented deployment with his unit, his off duty employment and taking college courses.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, Vacation Action, four Letters of Reprimand, and three Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  The DRB noted that the infractions were the result of his choices and behavior
and not caused by any resentment on the part of coworkers or supervisors.  During testimony the applicant stated that his medical condition or its treatment did not prevent him from performing his duties and did not cause the incidents of misconduct.  Furthermore, the applicant was properly evaluated by the Air Force Disability System and was determined to be fit and returned to duty.  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 Board noted that documentation of disciplinary actions leading to a UIF and placement on the control roster referred to in an EPR was completely missing from the personnel file and unavailable for review.  The applicant stated he did not recall any disciplinary actions, having a UIF established, or being placed on the control roster during that particular rating period.  At the time of this referral report, the applicant did not provide comments to his rater to correct any errors that may have been present.  Despite this, the Board concluded that the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate based solely on the misconduct documented in the personnel file.

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.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was nearly 23 years of age when the discharge took place and had been in the Air Force over three years.  There is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.
The Board notes that the vast majority of first-term members 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.

Issue 4 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, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 5. The applicant also requested promotion to the rank of E-4, a request outside the purview of the DRB. The Board noted the referral EPR, indicating administrative conditions preventing promotion by Air Force policy, closing out shortly before the date of eligibility for promotion to E-4. Inaddition to specified time in service and time in grade requirements, promotion to E-4 requires the written recommendation of a member's commander based on all aspects of duty performance as well as on and off duty conduct.

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 should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief