ATR J<nv rv nrn,.,n 4 u E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RRCOR n

)

-
TYPE•GE1N111,r
YES	No
x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF C;O;UN S;E:LzA:N;:;D;;O;;; O;R;GANIZATIO; - --------rAD	

MEMBER SITTING	

		
x	RECORD  REVIEW	
DRES:S;-ANIDD cORO;R;GGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
					x	
					x	
					x	
				x	

•

3

4

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME   F PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

ISSUES

A93. 19
A92.21 A93.0I

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50
A69.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING TH_E_B_O_A_RD	,
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

11 Oct 2005	FD-2005-00164

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 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-2005-00164	

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

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 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and he was immature. The records indicated the applicant received a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct and failure in the alcohol abuse treatment. For his misconduct he received the following: an Article 15 for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer, underage drinking, and driving while under the influence of alcohol; seven Letters of Reprimand for failure to go and obey a lawful order, drinking and possession of alcoholic beverages underage, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer and superior noncommissioned officer, lying, uniform not within standards, late returning from breakfast and lunch, improper conduct in the duty area, and a civil arrest for assault; and a Letter of Counseling for dereliction of 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 characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant states that the charges of his civil arrest were dropped and if the incident had been looked into he would still be in the military. This issue is without merit as the applicant did not provide any documentation to support this issue. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's post-service activities and desires for a government job or a job in law enforcement. 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.

Ifthe applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board. Ifhe should choose to exercise his right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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