AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING  RECORD

,.., •   ·•"' ru:c "'1/l>VTrl/  Ml< l\llRl/J>  11  A "'T  T:cJD<'T  u1nTu  "' '1"1TIAL)

GRADE

TYPE  GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

ADDJlJ:SS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN
x x x

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

x
x

ISSUES		A94.58 A92.02 A93.20

INDEX NUMllER

A67. 10

f-2-

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	--1
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	,

-t-
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEAR ANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATF;	CASE NUMllER

23 .Jan 2006

FD-2005-00145

Case heard at the Florida State Armory, St. Augustine, Florida and Washington, D.C. via video teleconference. Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board.
Names and votes wi ll be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

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

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEi. COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW JIOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFJI, MD 2076l·7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASF. NUMBER

FD-2005-00145	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at the Florida State Armory, St. Augustine, Florida and Andrews AFB, via video teleconference on 23 Jan 2006. Ms. CC, the applicant's friend, also testified as a witness on his behalf.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit #6: American Muscle & Fitness Personal Trainer Certificate. Exhibit #7: American Muscle & Fitness Recommendation Letter.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is approved.
ISSU E: Applicant acknowledged that his actions were wrong and that he had a problem with alcohol. He stated that despite his alcohol problem, he was considered a sharp airman. He expressed his concern that his discharge would adversely affect his ability to obtain United States Citizenship. He also cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade as he desired to return to school and become a physical therapist. While the Board was sympathetic to the applicant's concerns over citizenship and the impact the loss of G.I. Bill benefits were having on the applicant, it did not consider this a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade. The DRB, however, concluded that the applicant's discharge was too harsh, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's second offense of driving while intoxicated (DUI) and his otherwise excellent duty performance, participation in honor guard , and volunteerism. The applicant's first enlisted performance report was a "firewall" 5. His rater said he "epitomized Air Force core values--extraordinary enthusiasm displayed daily--prornotc ahead of schedule." His additional rater said, "absolute quality performer--a high achiever with extreme capabilities and potential--promote immediately! " Although, his next EPR was a referral for drinking underage then driving while intoxicated (DUI), followed by a second DUI, his duty performance was rated absolutely superior and his EPR continued to show a dedication to the Honor Guard and various volunteer activities. With respect to the second DUI, the board believed the applicant's decision to drive his friend from the dormitory to his vehicle parked at the base gate to recover a wallet was the result of his impaired alcoholic judgment. Whereas, his decision earlier that same night to walk to a night club just outside the gate to consume alcohol with his friend reflected a significant mitigating factor and demonstrated that the applicant was conscious of his responsibility not to drive under the influence of alcohol. Given the facts surrounding his second DUI and his otherwise outstanding duty performance, the DRB believed that the applicant should have been provided additional probation and rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists an equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief