X PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME or COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIMTIOl'I

·· •   MEMBERS SI'ITING
X -
x
x
x
x

HEARING  DATE

CASE NUMBER

I  J	ORDER APPOINTINO THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

110405

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

FDOJ-00017

COUNSEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE  HEARING

REMARKS
The case was heard at And rews AFB, MD.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781S .

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVI EW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING,31W FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD20762-7002

AFHQ FORM  0-2077,JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

 	
CASENUMBER	
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	
1-00017	

GENERAL: The applicant appealed for upgrade of his discharge	to
applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD, on April 5,2001.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of the discharge to honorable was not approved.  The Board found the record did not substantiate a reason to grant clemency.
The applicant's original issues were: (1) His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident; (2) When he was tried, the Base Commander was more likely to approve a bad-conduct discharge than lesser punishment.  Thus his discharge was inequitable; (3) Out of eight individuals involved in the thefts, only one other member was punished more harshly; (4) The applicant's lawyer told him his commander would recommend a general discharge. However, his commander later preferred charges against him; and (5) He and only one other individual were court-martialed. Thus, his discharge was inequitable.
The applicant was briefed that the DRB could only consider clemency, as it could not use inequity or impropriety as a basis for relief.  The applicant admitted he discussed stealing with a		who worked at a department store downtown. She also told the applicant she could "hook him up" with items if he stole for her. The applicant admitted he did steal from the store on multiple occasions by taking items to the cash register and his accomplice would only charge for lower priced items.  Later, the applicant worked there and stole several pieces of merchandise by moving them to a pickup point where others would take the items without paying for them. The applicant discussed his thefts in front of other members of his squadron      and solicited two others to obtain stolen merchandise. Later, the applicant and the	who worked at the stereo conspired to steal several items from the McGuire AFB BX. The applicant would return merchandise and received cash as well as replacement merchandise. The applicant explained that he was .           young and impressionable at the time.  He saw an opportunity to get items at little or no cost and took advantage of it. He said he was not the prime actor in the scheme, but admitted he was heavily involved.
He admitted the items he stole were valued at several hundred dollars and he stole from the department store on 4-5 occasions and BX on 2-3 occasions.  He said he was punished at the court-martial, but that the bad-conduct discharge was too harsh. He said it would follow him for the rest of his life.  Since his discharge, he has worked at a variety of jobs.  He is currently employed at a hospital in North Carolina as a supply manager.
CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant presented no evidence to justify clemency. The Board noted that the member pled guilty to several serious crimes, any of which couldjustify a punitive discharge. In addition, he conspired to further these thefts and brought third parties into the crimes.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concluded there existed no basis for clemency and the applicant's discharge was not upgraded.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief