AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

x	^PERSONAL ^APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

(b) (6)

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	^DENY
x

X*+

x x x

lO
A93.01 A92.03 A93.05 A93.07
A93.15 A94.55

HEARING DATE	^CASE ^NUMBER

^02 ^Apr ^2014	FD-2013-00773

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARG E
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT HME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

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.

* CHANGE RE CODE

TARlAL

^. TO:

- ---------------t'KOM:	_--..--....tll!lJl-H-

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00773

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 on 02 Apr 2014.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 1: Orders Appointing the Board
Exhibit 2: Application for Review of Discharge Exhibit 3: Notification Letter and Response
Exhibit 4: Examiner's Brief with supporting documents Exhibit 5: Applicant's contentions

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. The Board further denies the application to change of reason and authority for discharge, and to change the 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 1. The applicant contends the discharge, characterization of service and re-enlistment code were inequitable because at the time of the discharge, his ability to serve was impaired by severe marital problems and his former dependence on alcohol. Specifically, the applicant explains that because his wife had an affair with a friend and co-worker of the applicant he abused alcohol, which in tum led to his disciplinary problems. Although the applicant accepts full responsibility for his actions, he nevertheless asserts that his unit failed to provide him with adequate support and services to deal with the stress of his situation and resulting alcohol abuse. The applicant admitted that he did not seek out or avail himself of the resources available to him at his base, including chaplain, substance abuse and mental health services. He explained that he chose not to seek out those resources because he had "checked out."

Apart from the testimony of the applicant and his written contentions, the record is unclear as to whether the Air Force offered adequate support to the member at the time. However, the applicant does not contend that the process was unfair and does not dispute the underlying facts that led to the disciplinary action.

Issue 2. The applicant contends his discharge, characterization of service and re-enlistment code were unjust in light of his overall service record. However, the applicant did not demonstrate that his service met the definition of "Honorable," that is, "the quality of the airman's service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate." AFI 36-3206, paragraph 1.18.1. On the contrary, the Board concluded that the applicant's long history of misconduct demonstrated that an "Under Honorable Conditions (General)" service characterization was the most appropriate characterization.

Issue 3. The applicant contends his post-service contributions to society and record of civilian employment

are of such a glowing nature that it casts substantial doubt on the accuracy of his service record. The applicant has  acieved numerous accomplishments since his discharge from the Air Force, including obtaining three additional degrees, working with at-risk youth as a counselor, a probation officer, a community outreach specialist and a social worker. The applicant has obtained a Top Secret clearance and is employed as a federal  law enforcement officer. The Board commends the applicant's many accomplishments, but concludes these accomplishments do not overcome the accuracy of his service record and that a General service characterization is appropriate.

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. The Board further concludes that 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