AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

1------.-----i NAllU: OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

AllllKI0.5S AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

-
ISSUES

A93.0l
A93.07

INDF.X NUMBER

A67.50

x x x x
x

1 ORDER APPOI NTI NG THE BOARD
2 APl'LICATION FOR REVIEW OF DlSCllARGE
3  Ll:'l'TFR OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL"S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXH!lllTS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
•	PERSONAL APPEARANCE
•	
TAPE RECOR DI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARA NCE HEARING

f!EAR!NG DA TE

i  Case heard i n Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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 wil l  be made available to the appl icant at the applicant's req uest.

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00374	

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

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDINGS:	The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge and 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: The applicant contends discharge was inequitable based on the following reasons:
1.	Age and Maturity.
2.	Marital/Family  Problems.

Issue 1. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made when young. The records indicated the applicant received four Article 15, two Vacation Actions, three Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, one Record of Individual Counseling and six Memorandums for Record for misconduct.  His misconduct included failure to report/go (lOx), falling asleep while on duty, failing to show proper respect to the National Anthem, lying about the time his shift would end, wrongfully obtaining meals from an AF dining facility by false pretense on divers occasions, failing to communicate with command in a timely matter about issues that would keep him away from his duty location (2x), failing to wear a seat belt while on base, and stealing property from AAFES.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years, 10 months 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 ORB concluded that the characterizations of the applicant's discharge,  the reasoning for discharge, and reenlistment code were appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that due to marital/family problems he was under undue stress and should not be punished indefinitely for the mistakes he made while under those temporary stressors.  The DRB recognized the applicant had marital and family issues; however, there is no evidence these stressors caused him to not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant's situation was not significantly more unusual from what other Air Force members face; yet, they are able to properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterizations of the applicant's discharge, the reasoning for discharge, and reenlistment  code were appropriate due to the misconduct.

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 the applicant 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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged. The Board further concludes that there is no legal or  equitable basis for f'h;;in£e of reason and authority for discharge, or change of reenlistment code

Attachment: Examiner's Brief