AlK I'VKLJ<; u1;:,LttAK\JJ<; Kt<, V It<, W  HUAKU  HJ<,AKIN\J KJ<,CUKU

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE
 	..... NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x x x
x x

A91.06

1t,Ul:.A l'ou1••Lo._...,

A68.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
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 HEARING

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Feb 14	FD-2013-00134

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.

TO:

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

FROM:

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-2013-00134	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge service characterization to an honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 20 February 2014. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: 

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 finds the applicant submitted insufficient evidence to permit a grant of clemency.

ISSUE: The Applicant contends that after 12 years of living with the punitive effects of a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), he should be given a grant of clemency based on his post-service conduct. The BCD is a punitive discharge adjudged in a Special Court-Martial. The Discharge Review Board, an administrative board, will not look at equity or propriety issues for punitive discharges. The applicant presented evidence which the DRB opined did not warrant granting clemency.

The Applicant provided testimonial evidence that he has exhibited good conduct since his punitive discharge. Specifically, he is financially responsible, owns a home and a car, is married with a young child, is involved in his community as a volunteer for various charities, and is gainfully employed with the Department of the Army. While the DRB found all of these accomplishments to be positive and were pleased to see that the Applicant had personal and professional success in spite of his BCD, the evidence as presented simply did not show post service conduct so meritorious that it warranted a grant of clemency.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant's punitive discharge  by Special Court-Martial is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief