AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSA"'I

- 111 11 IUlt

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X    RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN	DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER
A92.37, AOl.13, AOl.43	A67.30

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETf ER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
03-0S..07

REMARKS

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0383

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL HLE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TlME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case heard at 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.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD l 535 COM.MAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS j\FB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0.2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	·Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD'.2002-0383	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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 finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct. Although all documents pertaining to applicant's discharge proceeding are missing and unavailable for review, applicant referenced being arrested for grand larceny after deposit funds were missing from a civilian sports store he worked at before entering the military. Although the deposit was missing before member entered the Air Force, he was arrested after a considerable amount of time had passed and he was on active duty. Applicant states he pied "no contest" because he didn't have the money to hire a lawyer and was afraid he wouldn't be able to clear his name. Although the discharge documents could not be located for review, the Sentencing Order from the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, dated May 6, 1999, disclosed that pursuant to a plea agreement, although member protested his innocence, he pled guilty to the offense of Grand Larceny and was therefore found guilty of said offense and sentenced to 3 years in the Virginia Department of Corrections, suspended contingent on his making restitution to the retail store, paying court costs and attorney fees. Furthermore, review of local civilian law enforcement investigative records disclosed applicant clearly had control of the disputed funds and forged the bank verification sheet to prove he had deposited the money. What applicant didn't know was that the person whose signature he had forged was not working at the bank at that time, or that other businesses that had made their money drops, had them all properly recorded. There had previously been some mechanical problems with the bank's night depository wherein some deposits had disappeared, but applicant also did not know those problems had been satisfactorily resolved before the deposit from the sports store went missing. The file further disclosed that applicant had been warned he needed to come into the police department to undergo a polygraph exam before departing for Air Force training. When he failed to do so, the case went forward for an indictment. Records review further disclosed member was also the subject of a suicide attempt in September 1998 after he and his wife argued regarding his alleged infidelity while in technical school. In the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, the Board could find no wrongfuJ action by the Air Force and applied the presumption of regularity in determining there was no inequity or impropriety in the processing of member's discharge.

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