AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE I NITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

r:·---------------------------- ·:
-----------------------------!

SRA

·:------------------ .'
'

TYPE UOTH   X
'  ,

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

:r<  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

'

·-------------------------------------
'

'     -------------------------------------

HON	OEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.11 A92.21 A94.07 A92.0l AOl.57 A93.07

INDEX NUMBER

A74.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Jun 2007	FD-2007-001 13

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and his right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­

.	1
:..--

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR t"ORCE  PERSONNl:I, COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
15J5 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-2007-001 13	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 13 June 2007.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Applicant letter
Exhibit #6: Character reference letters

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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends that although a punitive discharge was authorized and he received a discharge in lieu of Court Martial, the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and didn't allow him the rehabilitation he deserved.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article l 5s for wrongful use of marijuana and sexually assaulting an Airman, one Letter of Reprimand for dereliction of duty, and one Memorandum for Record for testing positive for marijuana a second time.  The Board concluded that the applicant's misconduct was so egregious that additional rehabilitation was not appropriate.  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 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 performance as documented by his performance reports. They found the seriousness of thc 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.

Issue 3.  Applicant asks the board to consider upgrade based on his post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, has a good job and is active in his church.  However, the DRB determined that based on the documentation provided and the board hearing, they could find no inequity or impropriety in his discharge and as a result, the applicant's post service activities did not offset his current characterization of service.

Issue 4.  Applicant opines that throughout his career, but specifically during his last reenlistment period, his chain of command's arbitrary and capricious actions contributed to his misconduct and his subsequent discharge and characterization of service.  The DRB found no specific evidence to substantiate the applicant's claims.  As such, they concluded the member's characterization  of service was appropriate.

Issue 5:  Applicant contends his family issues were not appropriately acknowledged and dealt with by his chain of command.  Although the DRB was sympathetic to the member's family losses, they noted that the losses had taken place four years prior to the misconduct and the member had sought and received	

counseling and depression medication from the base Mental Health Clinic.  In addition, based on the documents provided, the board found no reason to believe that the chain of command had not provided counseling and/or support to the member after his family losses, however, they agreed it was conceivable after four years that the chain of command might have lost their willingness to provide the level of support the member felt he needed.  Despite this, the board agreed that the member knew right from wrong and had other options available to him, (e.g., return to counseling with Mental Health, etc.), rather than choose to use his own "illegal" means to self-medicate/cope.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 6:  Applicant states that he was "railroaded" and allegations against him, to include the Article 15 for assault, the dereliction of duty LOR, the violation of quarters, his invitations to smoke marijuana with subordinates and the second positive drug test were invalid or "lies".  Based on the documentation provided, the DRB is unable to substantiate the applicant's claims; the board found the documentation to be creditable and the characterization of service 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