fARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

ITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x

ISSUES

A93. 17 A95.00

INDEX NUMBER	A67.70

x x
x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

18 Aug 2005	FD-2005-00082

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.

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

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

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 10761-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00082	

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

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 and change ofreason and authority for discharge 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends allegations were unsubstantiated.   The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, four Letters of Reprimand, three letters documenting verbal counseling, and two letters of documenting a duty/alcohol incident and financial irresponsibility.  The member's misconduct included wrongful use of marijuana, dereliction of duty, reporting to work intoxicated on two occasions, failure to pay just debt, reporting to work wearing the wrong uniform, failure to go, and late for work. 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 characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant states that he was not arrested, convicted, nor sentenced as a result of his discharge and his discharge is hindering employment opportunities. This issue is without merit since an administrative discharge is not dependent on a conviction or an arrest but rather the underlying misconduct. The DRB recognized the applicant was 31 years of age when the discharge took place. There is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board 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.

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