AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R EVIEW BOA RD HEARI NG RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE IN ITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
AB
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSON A L  APPEARANC	I	R ECORD REVIEW
CO;t!Nll&L	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	Al>DRF.SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITT I NG

.

VOTE OFTHE BOARD	,.
····-··	·-	,,,	··-- '
llON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSlll:S	A92.35	INDEX NUMBER	A67.05	EXHI BITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A92.21	1	ORDER APPOINTI NG THE DOARD
A93.01	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A92.01	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
A93.33	4	RRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
A94.05	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
A39.00	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
A94.43	PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Hl!:ARING DAT!:	CASE NUMBER

23 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00125
Al'PLICAN'f'S \SS!JE ANO t'Hlt l'IOARO'S Ol!Cl$10NAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE rllSCflARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISION At RA1'10NALE

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to subm it an appl ication to the A FBCM R

Names and votes wil l be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest.

',-

I	ll	/}

"'

)	I
INDORSEMENT			DATE; 2/2412006
··-·-·-- ····-· ·-- ·--	--	····-
TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRDR
550 C STREET WEST, SU ITE 40

Sf:CRl:TAlff Ot' THE AIR FORCE PF:RSONNEL COllNCIL
AIR FORCI: l>ISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AfU, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS  AFB, MP 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-2005-00125	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment (RE) code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 23 Feb 2006.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5:  Applicant's  Written Statement
Exhibit #6:  Character Statements (3)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change ofreenlistment code 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.

ISSUES: The applicant submitted multiple issues to support his contention for receiving an upgrade of discharge and a change in his RE code. Namely, the applicant contends that his discharge was too harsh and was based upon "isolated acts" of miscond uct and thus were  not serious enough to warrant a "bad discharge." Further, the applicant believes that his efficiency ratings and "proficiency marks," along with his many letters of commendation and good post-service citizenship should be considered  in upgrading the characterization of his military service. The applicant also  believes  that  personnel  problems  and  personality conflicts under new squadron leadership impaired his ability to function effectively, or words to that effect. Finally, the applicant cited that his clinical history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a condition which pre-dated his entry on active m ilitary service and which he failed to disclose at the time of his entry on active military service, and his failure to receive alcohol abuse counseling warrant consideration as possible causal or mitigating factors in his pattern of misconduct. The records ind icated the applicant received two Articles  15, (the first for viewing/storing  pornographic  images on a government computer) followed by a Vacation Action  (for underage  alcohol  consumption,  drunk and disorderly conduct, and misappropriation  of a driver's license, not his own), and the second Article 15 resulting in a further grade reduction to Airman Basic, one Letter of Reprimand (for failure to report to duty at the prescribed time), and one Letter of Counseling (for failure to complete an outstanding task). In response to the discharge action, the applicant expressed a desire to be retained, citing the "right path" he was following through mentoring. However, the ORB opined that through the aforementioned administrative actions,  the  applicant  had  ample  opportunities  to change his negative behavior, as noted in the specific language of the letter of reprimand, which followed a letter of counseling, both predating the final act of misconduct that resulted in his discharge, that reads: "Your career is under scrutiny and you have absolutely no margin for error." Whi le the applicant clearly demonstrated a great deal of volunteerism within his organization and had previously attained a favorable enlisted performance report, the pattern of  misconduct  that  followed  far  outweighed  the positive aspects of his enlistment in the view of the discharge authority. With reference to personality and personnel conflicts within his squadron, the Board noted that the applicant had already been transferred from a previous organization allegedly not based  upon his conduct or performance.  The Board otherwise  found no evidence of substantiated maltreatment  or "singling-out" of the  applicant based upon his gender,  race, physical characteristics, personality, or level of training. With reference  to the applicant's ADHD and alcohol consumption issues, the medical record reflects the member was indeed interviewed by Life Ski l ls personnel and received a prescribed medication for ADHD and was scheduled to attend an alcoholism awareness seminar, with the belief, likely through the history of a singular documented episode of alcohol-associated misconduct or the applicant's failure to disclose the true depth of his alcohol consumption, that the applicant did not req uire more intense intervention, as in the case of alcohol abuse or dependency. The applicant also cited an example of others, within another organization, he believed committed similar or worse miscond uct who were retained on active duty. However, the Board had no objective evidence upon which to establish an inequity was committed in the applicant's case. The Board was pleased to see that the applicant has done well since his discharge,  having achieved solid employment in a state correctional institution, with participation in church and comm unity activities. However, no inequity or impropriety in the applicant's  discharge  was  suggested  or identified  in  the  course of his hearing that would warrant an upgrade of discharge or change in RE code.

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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief