AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMRF'.R SITTINr..

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

A92.35

lNDExNt'JMBER

A67.50

APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
RECORDING Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Jan 2010	FD-2009-00007

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.

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, 3RI> FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 211762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00007	

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 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.
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:	(From  the  DD  Form  293)  The  applicant  contends  discharge  was  inequitable  based  on the following reason.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was based on minor, isolated incidents during his five-plus year career. The records indicated the applicant received three Article l 5s, all of which were alcohol related. Following the second incident, the applicant was entered into an outpatient ADAPT program, but continued to abuse alcohol leading to the third incident of misconduct. The DRB opined that through these nonjudicial punishment actions and attempt to help the applicant overcome his alcohol problem, 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 Air Force career. 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 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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief