AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

- - - '" INITIAi,)

GRADE

AIC
I

TYPE   GEN	x	I

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

I	RECORD    REVIEW

'.>' Jllt'.;Q)J.lf/$. 1;>	NAME  OF COUNSEL  AND Ok OkGANIZATION YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX N UMBEK

AUUllliSS AND Ok OkGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

l:qli!> g;	R1mir<\1:1;1::2!lll!lll!lll-:.-;wi<.:
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE [!OARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	[!RIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE

12 Jan 2005

CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00304
,. ;j!	'BB	1,S v;J;,. ,':,:m	' -,- ::-:i 0cu-'P, , -- ',_ ,,:- ""'  · --  · ,, .. .Ill- :

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

/
Trl\IATITDF  Oli' RF.CORDER	SJ
'-

:_  '))j/,+JL\r·:'.:uLs.:=:}J:;::;."'/ ,; -- -;. -U)w•N·tv	:t- ;;:·m.-,,,,, '''\%
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-2005-00304	

GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and to change the reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 12 Jan 2005.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: None.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	Upgrade   of  discharge,  change  of  reason  and  authority   for  discharge,  and  change  of reenlistment 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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  Similarly, he states his discharge was based on minor infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Memoranda for Record, two Records of Individual Counseling, and six Letters of Reprimand.  These actions addressed the applicant's repeated failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, loss of his line badge, speeding on the flight line, and failure to use chocks on a vehicle.  The ORB 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 the conduct expected of all military members.
The Board discussed the possibility that the discharge was inequitable because an adjustment disorder would have been a more appropriate basis for discharge.  The Board discussed the fact the applicant sought help from a Chaplain after suicidal ideation and was referred to the Behavioral Health Center (BHC).  The applicant told the BHC he was depressed over his parents' illnesses, but declined treatment and anti­ depressant medication, saying he desired instead to be discharged or transferred to his home state of Ohio.
The Board also noted the applicant's suicidal gesture on 4 March 2001, the fact that he recovered from his depression, and that it has not recurred.  The basis and characterization of the discharge received by the applicant were found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge resulted from discrimination by his supervisors.  Similarly, he states he was treated unfairly and inappropriately.  He contends he was assigned "grunt work" because he was a junior Airman.  However, the applicant could not provide any specific examples of discrimination.  He complained of being required to empty aircraft latrines, to work continuous night shifts, and to take his days off on weekdays rather than weekends.  He admitted these duties were inherent to his AFSC and that other Airmen performed the same tasks.  He stated he was yelled at, sworn at, and called "swear-word" names by peers and supervisors.  The Board determined this did not amount to discrimination.

Issue 3.  Applicant states his discharge misrepresents his morals and hard work.  The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his letter of evaluation, AF Training Ribbon, and AF Outstanding Unit Award.  The applicant did not receive an AF Good Conduct Medal.  The Board found the 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.

Issue 4.  Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake he made when young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 24 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older  than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.
The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 5.  Applicant requests his reenlistment eligibility code be changed to allow him to join the Air Force Reserves or Air National Guard.  He states he is more mature and would succeed if allowed to reenlist.
However, the Board concluded this was not a sufficient basis to change his reenlistment eligibility 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.

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