AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

;---------------------------------   :
--------------------------------J

AMN	t::::::::

TYPE  HON	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW

1-•·.•·.····-(:OIJNSEL -NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

..

.

·.--------------------------------­
:
...
--.l
.

..

---...:
--..l
-----------------------------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICA TJON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Nov 2006

Case heard in Washington, D.C. via video teleconference with Travis AFB, CA.

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 request.

...

·...---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	'.;	I
.	.
----------------------------------------     ,-----------------------,-------,   -1--------------------------------------

TO:

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

I     FROM•

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00086	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Travis AFB, CA via video-teleconference with Andrews AFB on 14 Nov 2006.

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.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received seven Letters of Counseling, four Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and a Vacation action for misconduct that included repeatedly reporting late for work, sleeping on duty, making a false official statement, leaving the local area while on telephone standby, failing to return a borrowed car, uniform violation, and failure to have car insurance. The applicant attributed his problems to depression due to the stress of military service, financial problems related to a large debt he incurred prior to entering service, being away from home and relationship problems with his girlfriend. During testimony, the applicant reported that he had experienced problems with depression since age 15. Evidence of the record and testimony revealed difficulties with college and employment during the four years following graduating from high school leading up to the time of enlistment into the Air Force. While the applicant attributed reporting late and sleeping on duty to depression, in testimony he admitted many of these instances were related to use of alcohol and working off duty  jobs to pay his pre-service incurred debt. Review of medical documentation confirmed appropriate medical evaluations including mental health evaluation that concluded he was responsible for his conduct. Evidence of the medical record did not show that his mental health provider considered his symptoms of depression warranted disability evaluation, and at the time of separation medical examination the applicant reported feeling well. The applicant felt that his unit did not offer any help but the Board noted that the applicant was provided financial counseling, alcohol abuse counseling, and mental health counseling. The board noted multiple instances in the service medical record when the applicant declined help recommended by health care providers. After considering  the applicant's assertions, the evidence of the record and testimony, the Board concluded that many instances of misconduct were clearly unrelated to his feelings of depression and that his reporting late and sleeping on duty were predominantly  due to poor judgment  and misuse of alcohol.  The DRB opined that through the administrative actions on the part of his supervisors and the help offered through medical and other base agencies, 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.

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