PERSONAL APPEARANCE
N.'\IVIE OF COUNstL Arfl> OR ORC...Nll.ATION

HON	CUI

UOTHC

OTHtR

l>tNY
x x

..

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET W T, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 7815()..4742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, J AN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rl:VJEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING. 3lo FLOOR ANDREWS AFB. M D 20762·7002
Previous edition will be used.

·-	x
x
x	
IL67.03, A 72.01, A76.0I, ii92.37, A92.25	A67.30	1
2	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
			APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	LE  ER OF NO IFICATION	
·	HURINGDATB:
01 0223
'.	C.4.St NUMHR
FDOI-00011	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
			COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
			ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING	

REM"RKS
Case hea rd at Washington, D.C. DD Form 149submitted.
Advise applica nt of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance hearing wit h/without cou nsel.	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-01-00011	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review	but declined to
exercise this right.

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	the applicant submitted no issues contesting the	or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issue. Pursuant to his guilty pleas, member was convicted by Special Court Martial (SPCM) of signing false	documents indicating he was married when in fact he wasn't, in order to fraudulently obtain Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) at the married rate, of stealing BAS and BAQ of a value over $100, and of signing the name of another person on a false Alaska Certificate of Marriage. Punishment consisted of 3 months confinement, 2 months hard labor without confinement, forfeiture of $650 pay per month for  5 months, and reduction to  Amn (E-2) When subsequently processed for-administrative discharge, he consulted counsel and chose not to submit matters in his own behalf. Applicant now contends he should not have been discharged because the SPCM did not result in a punitive discharge and the judge told him he could learn from his mistakes and turn his life around. The Board finds this issue without merit in that the issuance of an administrative discharge after a judicial proceeding does not usurp the judicial action of the convening authority because it is a separate and distinct administrative action. Furthermore, an administrative discharge that severs the military status of an individual and characterizes the quality of their service is not the same as a judicial proceeding leading to punishment for misconduct. Applicant was subject to discharge for his misconduct because it was of a nature that tends to disrupt order and discipline within the military community.

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
authority and that the applicant was provided	administrative due process

In view of the foregoing findings the board	concludes that there exists no legal or	basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief