AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

-   ---· - 'NITIAL)

GRADE

TYPE GEN

AMN
PERSONAl, APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW

1J\'!$  !((iyl';:i  NAME!ff COUNSEL ANLl OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.0l A92.03 A93.24 A94.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LElTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM llTED AT TIME Of
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECOR DING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00301
aoARD·s oms10N 1!\m; 1iJNf,1gpJ.1 THE ATTJl.	:
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.

f

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

SECRl;:TARY OF THE AIR t'ORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DJSCJIARCE REVIEW BOARD
ISJ5 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2005-00301	

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 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.

ISSUES

1.	Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because his misconduct was of a minor nature.  The records indicated the applicant received three Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand, and four Letters of Counseling for miscond uct.  The misconduct included multipl e violations of Correctional Custody policies, failure to go on five separate occasions, dereliction of duty, failure to follow instructions, late for an appointment, disrespect to a non-commissioned  officer, disobeying a direct order not to consume alcohol, and arriving incapacitated for the proper perfonnance of his duties.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ampl e opportunities to change his negative behavior.	The Board concluded the misconduct was a signi ficant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

2.	Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty perfonnance as documented by his perf01mance reports and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

3.	Applicant believes that his punishment was excessive.  The Board discussed the applicants' misconduct and the rehabilitation efforts made by his chain of command.  The Board concluded that the actions taken by his superiors were appropriate.

4.	Applicant contends that he was suffering from depression brought on by a menial job.  The Board noted that the applicant was a Communications Computer Systems Operations Journeyman who was diagnosed with mild major depressive disorder and referred to the Life Skills Center.  The DRB discussed how this disorder would affect his attitude and job performance.  The Board concluded that the basis and characterization of the discharge received by the applicant were 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