AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

"AME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

YES	NO
x

COL JOSEPH M. MARCHlNO II

COL GREGORY T. REHE COL THOMAS E. HAMMEN LT COL R. GAYLE FULTS
CHRISTOPHER C. VANNATTA

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN
x x x

x

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x

lSSUP:S
A94.06, A97.08, A94.11, A94.02, A92.21

HEili'IG DATE
24 APR 03

INDEX NUMBER
A75.00

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0032

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL Fl LE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCOS'SED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARG!l REVIEW BOARD DBCISIONAL RATIONALE REMARKS
Case hea rd at And rews AFB, MD

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Boa rd and his rigth to appeal to the Board for Correction of Milita ry Records.

:  TO:

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

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 28 APR 03

?:S:ARD P	-

, USAF

FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3l<D FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used.

William E. Cassera.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0032	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and for a change in the Reason and Authority for the discharge.	The applicant's case was considered by the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Andrews AFB, MD, on April 24, 2003.  The applicant appeared before the DRB with counsel, 1be attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors
leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: The DRB grants in part and denies in part the requested relief. The DRB finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates, in part, an inequity justifying an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant's discharge will  be upgraded to General (under honorable conditions).

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) service characterization from the Air Force pursuant to a request to resign in lieu of court-martial. The applicant had been accused of being absent without leave (AWOL) and of making several false official statements to his superiors in connection with his AWOL The applicant subsequently submitted a resignation in lieu of court-martial asking to be allowed to resign with a UOTHC service characterization  rather than face a court-martial. His request was granted. The applicant now contends that he was treated harshly, that the characterization was unfair in light of his otherwise honorable service, and that the accusations should not have been the subject of a court-martial.

CONCLUSIONS: The DRB concludes that the discharge was not completely consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, though the action was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The DRB carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, to include the applicant's testimony concerning his recollection of the incidents that led to his eventual request to resign rather than face a court-martial. The most compelling factor, in the view of the DRB, was the seriousness of the applicant's misconduct. More specifically, it was the applicant's perpetual dishonesty that was of greatest concern to the DRB. Making a false official statement to one's supervisor is, of course, quite serious. The false statements made by the applicant in an attempt to conceal his misconduct, particularly those made to the base commander, fatally compounded the severity of his wrongdoing. Such misbehavior for an officer is, quite simply, dishonorable. Even when given the opportunity to "set the record straight" during his interview with agents from the Office of Special Investigations, he continued the deception. The DRB also concluded that the applicant was well aware of the leave policy, having been thoroughly counseled by his supervisor weeks before, and that he engaged in his misconduct in an effort to avoid being charged for 5 days of leave. Indeed, notwithstanding the applicant's claim that he had hoped "to the last minute" that his friend would be able to join him in Sicily, the DRB found that the applicant had a long standing plan to meet his friend in Germany and to mislead his supervisor regarding his plans for leave. Despite the gravity of the misconduct, given the sincerity of the applicant's motivation for seeking an upgrade, the applicant's post-service accomplishments, and the circumstances of the case, the DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's service was too harsh.

Having found an inequity in the severity of the characterization of the discharge, the DRB upgraded the characterization of the discharge to General (under honorable conditions) but declined to upgrade the discharge to Honorable or to change the Reason and Authority for the discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief