AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD88-00283-A	
GENERAL:	The applicant  appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and change of reason for discharge.

The applicant appeared before the Board without counsel at the Air Reserve Personnel Center, Denver, Colorado, on 21 Oct 03. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5: Applicant' s contentions.
Exhibit 6: Character Letter from COMCOR, Inc., dated 12 Sep 03 Exhibit 7: Character Letter from                            , dated 15 Oct 03

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is 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:

Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because his overall record was honorable; his discharge was .based on a one-time incident; the incident was caused by severe personal problems; he had three prior honorable discharges; his command abused its authority when it decided to give him a "bad" (UOTHC) discharge; he had no nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, UCMJ; and he has been a good citizen since his discharge.

The records indicated and the applicant testified under oath that he pied guilty in civilian court to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to eight years in prison by civilian authorities. At the time of the accident, his blood alcohol level was well over the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. He presented his case to an administrative discharge board which determined that his conduct in killing a person in bis late teens or early 20s departed from that behavior expected of military members and recommended he be discharged under other than honorable conditions without probation and rehabilitation. His commanders agreed with the administrative discharge board and separated him for the commission of a serious offense with a UOTHC discharge. Although the Board recognized that the applicant successfully completed his prison term and was gainfully employed, the misconduct for which he was discharged and the characterization of that discharge
as UOTHC was not an abuse of authority and correctly characterized his service in the enlistment in which the misconduct occurred. The Board considered the applicant's entire record, but determined that the egregiousness of the misconduct which resulted in the death of an innocent person was conduct under other than honorable conditions.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 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, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief