AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

X	RECORD  REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X+* X+* X+*
X+*

ISSUES	A94. 11 A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A64.00

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

X+*

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Sep 2010	FD-2009-00040

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.

+ RE Code
* Reason and Authoritv for Discharge

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

.ONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00040	

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.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code.

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends the pattern of misconduct at the time was what the commander "believed to be DWI." However, applicant notes he has not been convicted by the state of Texas for DWI. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct; discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities. The record reflects that applicant had three Letters of Reprimand, one Record of Individual Counseling, one Memo for record, an Article 15, and a vacation of suspended punishment under Article 15. His disciplinary infractions included disrespect to his superiors, causing a major vehicle accident while driving drunk off base and becoming belligerent with the police officer on scene, signing off a "red X" aircraft discrepancy without visually assuring the condition had been corrected, failing to follow technical data, and driving drunk a second time. The Board felt that through these various disciplinary actions, applicant had ample opportunity to change his behavior over a 3.5 year period, but failed to do so. The Board could find no evidence that the commander acted capriciously or stepped outside the bounds of his authority. The board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the basis on which it was issued, and that the characterization of service accurately described applicant's period of military service.

Issue 2. Applicant believes he deserves a second chance despite his discrepancies so that he may serve his country working for a Department of Defense Contractor overseas. The Board was sympathetic to applicant's aspirations, but found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

CONCLUSION: 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 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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief