* 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 |
AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2014-00773
GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforchangeofthereasonandauthorityforthedischarge,andtochangethereenlistmentcode. TheapplicantwasofferedapersonalappearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard (DRB)butdeclinedandrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedon theavailableservicerecord. Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00073
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. FINDING: The Board denies...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00566
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN po AB TYPE GEN | PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW _ COUNSEL.) FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. AFI 44-121, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program, paragraph 3.8.1 states that commanders shall refer all service members for assessment when substance abuse is suspected to be a contributing factor in any incident, such as DUI.
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00646
AIR FORCEDISCHARGEREVIEW BOARDHEARINGRECORD NAME OFSERVICEMEMBER(LAST, FIRSTMIDDLEINITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSANPERSONALAPPEARANCE X RECORDREVIEWADDR.ESSANDORORGANIZATIONOFCOUNSELISSUES A93.19 MEMBERSIITING INDEXNUMBER A67.10 HON GENUOTHC OTHER DENY A94.05 A93.211 ORDERAPPOINTING THEBOARD2 APPLICATIONFORREVIEW OF DISCHARGELETTER OFNOTIFICATIONBRIEFOFPERSONNELFILECOUNSEL'SRELEASETOTHEBOARDADDITIONALEXHIBITSSUBMITTEDATTIMEOFPERSONALAPPEARANCETAPERECORDINGOF PERSONALAPPEARANCEHEARINGHEAIUNGDATE...
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 | CY2011 | FD-2010-00183
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AFSN/SSAN RECORD REVIEW i L ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL X*+ Xt+ X*+ X*+ ISSUES A411 mom 6710 A92.21 A47,00 1 |ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD A93.11 2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE A93.33 3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE | _|COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE...
AF | DRB | CY2013 | FD-2013-00405_13
GENERAL: Theapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetohonorable,tochangethereasonand authorityforthedischarge, andtochangethereenlistmentcode.Theapplicantwasofferedapersonal appearancebeforetheDischarge ReviewBoard (DRB)butdeclined andrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord.Theattachedbrief containsavailablepertinent dataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge. FINDING: The requestforthe upgradeofthe discharge,to change the reasonandauthorityfor discharge,...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00186
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) ; GRADE — AFSN/SSAN PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW re NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL AMERICAN LEGION ATTN: QUEEN BAKER 1608 K STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20006 VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBER SITTING HON GEN voTHc | OTHER DENY X+* Ke X+* X+* X+* ‘SSUES A94,05 INDEXNUMBER _ A67.90 Jpco EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE oe ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR...
AF | DRB | CY2015 | FD-2014-00070
GENERAL: TheapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetoGeneral. TheapplicantappearedandtestifiedbeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB),withoutcounsel, atAndrewsAFBonJune 29, 2015. Therewerenoadditionalexhibitssubmittedatthehearing.
AF | DRB | CY2009 | FD2008-00024
The Board found the commander’s decision to initiate administrative action is supported by the evidence in the record and concludes the discharge was appropriate. The Board found no evidence available in the record and none was presented by the applicant to warrant a change of the discharge. The Board found no evidence to substantiate to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.