NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
AFSN/SSAN
GRADE
AIC
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
AMERICAN LEGION
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
ATTN: QUEEN BAKER 1608 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
"ere 8 NOTEQE THE BOARD pw ates
HON GEN UOTHC - OTHER DENY
et
Kobe
X+*
X+*
Xt+*
Xt*
ISSUES A94.55 INDEX NUMBER A 67.1 0 cae EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 10 THE BOARD oe
A94,05 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARID _
A92,21 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
de | Ce | Bo ft
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
27 Jul 2010
FD-2009-00073
Case heard in Washington, D.C.
+RE Code
* Narrative Reason
Nur nik NT
To:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742
APPLICANT'S ISSUB-AND THE BOARIY'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCHSSED.ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BO
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.
ARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.
EC LEEREe Ne
———— rites
DATED 8/3/2010
FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND OR, FE WING, IRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00
(EF-V2) Previous
CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 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 2010.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #5: Applicant’s Contentions
Exhibit #6: American Legion Statement
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 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 1. 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 Reprimand
(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 alcoholic dependence following his
second treatment program, the first instance of misconduct should not have been used as a basis for his
discharge. Further, 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 condition 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.
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
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00337
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD AFSN/SSAN AIC TYPE GEN RECORD REVIEW ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL VORDOP THE BOARD GEN UOTHC OTHER X#4 Xt Xt X*+ ISSUES INDEX NUMBER A94,06 A67.10 2 2 RXnBiTs SUBMITTED 10 THE BO: ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD [> (we [r fe ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00455
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1536 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00455 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for discharge. ISSUE: Applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of his discharge. ...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00002
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 Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any that would justify a change of discharge. 8 Jul 04: LOR for failure to go.
AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2010-00228
The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 08 Mar 2012. 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. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00276
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 SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL = AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFR, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00078
*Reason and Authority +Reenlistment Code EUR SOT a f s NE TO: FROM: ; SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL Ban EES AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD §50 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2009-00078 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason...
AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00164
For his misconduct he received the following: an Article 15 for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer, underage drinking, and driving while under the influence of alcohol; seven Letters of Reprimand for failure to go and obey a lawful order, drinking and possession of alcoholic beverages underage, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer and superior noncommissioned officer, lying, uniform not within standards, late returning from breakfast and lunch, improper...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00497
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN PERSONAL APPEARANCE NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION RECORD REVIEW ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL AMERICAN LEGION 1608 K STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20006 HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY ME x¥4 XFt xe X¥t issues — : — VW BO ISSUES A93.15 INDEX NUMBER AG7.90 Pe ee ae A94.05 1 [ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD }2_| APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 [LETTER OF NOTIFICATION ne. ...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0313
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0313 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. I wish to receive my school benefits yet I no (sic) that unless my discharge is upgraded I won't receive them. BACKGROUND: The Respondent is 25 years old and has been on active duty in the United States Air Force for approximately 2 years and 7 months.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00526
+Reenlistment Code SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 AFHO FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00526 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code. FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of...