AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE

SRA
x	RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGA.   ZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x
x x x x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

01 Jul 2009	FD-2008-00237

Case heard in 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!O:U::NATJTUS' Oli' Dfo'rnt>J\fi'V	

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR,EE WING, 3RD FLOOR A". <DREWS AFll; MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00237	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.

ISSUE:

Issue.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because he served for 11 12 years with no disciplinary actions against him.  He contends he "took a General Discharge" because the Air Force was down-sizing.  The applicant request that his discharge be upgraded so he can reenlist in the Air Force Reserve.  Contrary to the applicant's contention, the records indicate the applicant received one Article  15 involving  10 UCMJ offenses, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  The Article 15 covered numerous instances of the applicant being absent without leave and making false official statements.  His misconduct appeared to be largely alcohol-related.  The notification memo noted that the applicant was sent to an in­ patient alcohol treatment facility but continued to consume alcohol following his release from the program. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions and the Air Force's attempts to help the applicant overcome his alcohol addiction, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his most recent enlistment.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was 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