X+*	
					X+*	
					X+*	

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME Ol!' SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL}

GRADE

A lC

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW
NAM; O!t COUNSEi.• ANn OR ORGANl;>;ATIO.'<	ADDllESS AND OR 0RGANl7.ATION OF COUNSEL

AMERICAN LEGION

ATTN:  QUEEN BAKER 1608 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006

ISSllt:S

A94.55
A94.05 A.92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2   APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4  HRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE OOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE H EAR ING

HEARING DATE

CASF. NllMBF.R

27 Jul 2010

FD-2009-00073

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the A FBCMR. Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's
+RE Code
* Narrative Reason

Q"('E:  8/3/'lOJ U

fR(lM,

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

SCRt:TARY OF Tiii! AIR FORCE PERSONN:L COllNCIL
AJR f'OHCE lllSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMf'« IJ  Dk, F.F. WING. JRD FLOOR ANl>R!;WS MU, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(Ef -V2)

Previous

-AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00073	

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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB, Maryland on 27 Jul 20 l0.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit	·Applicant's  Contentions
Exhibit #6: American Legion Statement

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, the 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.

ISSUE:
Issue I . Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in light of his performance over the years. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and one Letter of Repri mand (LOR), both for alcohol related misconduct. The applicant contends that since he was not diagnosed as an alcoholic following his 1-day Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment program (ADAPT) counseling for his first misconduct (Article 15), and was diagnosed with alcohol ic dependence following his second treatment program, the first instance of misconduct should not have been used as a basis for his discharge. Fm1her, the applicant disputed the validity of the breathalyzer and field sobriety tests administered following his second instance of misconduct. Finally, the applicant states he was not convicted of the charges, and should have been retained in the Air Force until after his court date. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was not diagnosed as an alcoholic and did not recognize his drinking problem following his initial ADAPT. The applicant admitted  he was drinking on the night of his arrest which resulted in his second alcohol misconduct (LOR) and he did not cite in the response to the LOR or his discharge that he believed the breathalyzer and field sobriety tests were invalid.  Lastly,  although  the applicant was not convicted of the original charges of his arrest, he plead "NOT GUILTY" to a reduced charge and received a "PROBATION BEFORE JUDGMENT" verdict. The cond ition of this verdict was three years of probation and a $300.00 fine. The DRB opined that through his commander's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunity to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that these 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.

Issue 2. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant is continuing his college education and has remained employed since his discharge. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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.	

Inview- 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