ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

A IR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD
•	NA:\U: OF SERVICE MK\'IBER (LAST, ·nRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSU.

x

X*+

lSSt:ES

A94.05 A02.03

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW or DISCHARGE

X*+

--+- -	--	-----------

3 LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4  BR1Er or OCT> Cn>r>.Tr:T
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEAmNG OATE

Case heard i n Washington, D.C.

applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to subm it an appl ication to the Af BCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

*Reason and Authority
+Reenlistment Code

:-
  INDORSEMENT		

JO:
SAr/MRRR
550 C STREET RANDOLPH			

01 Jul 2010

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSON Al. APPEARANCE HEARING
--+-----------·-·-····--···-·-··- -----II--+-----------------------
CASE NUMBER

 	

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00163	

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),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 01 Jul 2010.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #S·: Applicant's  Contentions
Exhibit #6: Character reference letter

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 ofreenlistment 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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The applicant received three Article 15s for misconduct from three different bases over the course of four years for the following misconduct:  wearing a tongue ring in uniform; failure to get adequate rest before working with live munitions; failure to obey a lawful order (x2) for being at a bar outside the gate of Osan AB, Republic of Korea, after curfew and disobeying the order of a Security Forces member to leave the establishment; faiJure to go to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions; disrespect to a senior NCO; and sleeping while on duty.  The applicant disputed several of the offenses and minimized others.  He admitted to wearing the tongue ring in uniform.   Regarding the failure to get adequate sleep before loading munitions, the applicant stated that his friend called him at approximately 0100 to 0200 to ask for a ride back to Cannon AFB, New Mexico, after he had been drinking.  He made the decision to leave his home to pick his friend up but then became caught up in a base urinalysis sweep.  This, plus another series of events beyond the applicant's control, caused him to not get the required rest he needed to pcrfonn the mission, which involved being on alert for a Presidential support mission.  While the DRB sympathized with the applicant's decision to pick  his friend up, based on the seriousness of the applicant's mission the next morning, the DRB determined he should have exercised better judI::,11llent than to jeopardize his rest requirements.  The applicant claimed he was unaware that he was violating curfew requirements by remaining at the bar outside of Osan AB after curfew hours.  The DRB found this unlikely as he had been briefed regarding curfew requirements upon arrival to Osan AB and had completed almost his full tour at Osan AB.  Additionally, he admitted that he
heard a Security Forces sergeant order all military members to leave the bar and that he disobeyed this order. The applicant admitted to being late to work while stationed at Moody AFB, Georgia, on two occasions, but blamed his malfunctioning car.  He also admitted to missing a medical appointment.  The applicant disputed that he had been disrespectful to a senior NCO and stated that this event was misperceived by the senior NCO.  He admitted to briefly falling asleep while on duty but stated that his Zoloft medication made him sleepy.  The DRB opined that while the applicant may not have intentionally set out to engage in misconduct in all instances, his repeated poor judgment and inability to foresee the consequences of his actions resulted  in appropriate punislunents.  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.

Issue 2. While not raised by the applicant, a review of the applicant's file shows he was board-entitled at the time he was notified of his administrative discharge. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.2.2.2, states that a military member is entitled to a discharge board if he has six years or more total active and inactive military service at the time the discharge processing starts. This paragraph notes that service in the dc1aycd enlistment program is included in calculating the six years.  The applicant entered the delayed enlistment program on 27 September 2001 and was notified of his discharge on 1 November 2007; therefore, he should have been notified of his eligibility to have his case heard before an administrative discharge board. DoDI 1332.28, Enclosure 4, paragraph E.4.2.1, ct al, states that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion exists associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made). In this case, the DRB determined that the applicant was not prejudiced by the lack of a board hearing as there was not substantial doubt that a discharge board would have recommended the applicant's discharge with a general service characterization.  For this reason, the DRB found no impropriety.

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 detem1ines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief