·'	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, l•IRST MIDDLE f:'\ilTIAL)	AFSN/SSAN
.	.	llil• DFl!L	lili!Jllb ·.

TYPE

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME m·COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR  ORGANIZA HON OF (;OUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

IION

GEN
x

x
x

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x
x

A94.05

A70.00	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

Ht:ARING  DATE	(:ASF. NUMllER

RIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

20 Aug 2003

FD-2002-0020

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Ad vise 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/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY m·THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD f'LOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-1002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	{EFN2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2002-0020	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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 to Honorable is denied.  However, the discharge is upgraded to General.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant resigned in lieu of a Court Martial. The charges preferred against the applicant were for making a false claim and then lying about it. The Board opined that the UOTHC discharge the applicant received was too harsh and thought the discharge should have been more appropriately characterized as General.

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 foll administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reilected by a General discharge.  The applicant's  characterization should be changed to  General under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief