AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

-rn-

----+-•·--·- 1

rr.	... -···	.

NAl\fE OF SERVICE MEMBE K (LAST, FI RST MIDDLE  INITIAL)

GKA DE

AFSN/SSAN	]

TYPE .	-

111111 1 111

X    PERSONAL   APPEARANCE	RECORD REV I EW

COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSf.l. llNI> OR ORCANJ7ATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF (:Ot:NSEL

MEMBERS SITTING	HON

CEN
x

x

VOTE OF TUE llOARD

UOTHC

OTHZ,:R

ISSUES
A94.08;

INDF.X NUMBER
A67.30

f--:--r--:;""R""D""F'=-.-Ro

F.XHIBITS SUBMITTED TO 'tliE BOARD.
A"P"'l'"'"(")'"l N""I''"I"N,..,'-G rn F BOARD

A92.22;A92.06;A93. 02	2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

ll!:ARING  DATE

CASE NUMBER.._

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF 01-' PERSONNEL r:ILE

4 FEB 03

FD2002·0185	COUNSEL'S R E LFASE TO TH E 130AR D
ADDITIONAL EXl!IBITS SUl:!M lflFD AT TJ ME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RF.CORDING or PERSONAi APPF:RANCF. HEARING

APPLJCA	l  'UE AND THE BOARD'S D   JS!ONAL RA  ION;\l.ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE D SCHARGE.REV<EW IJOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

,-RF.MARKS
Case heard at Travis Af"B, California.

Ad vise applicant of the decision of the Board.

AFIIQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

R FORCF PERSONNEL COUNCIL REVIEW  BOARD

SECRETARY OF THE AI AIR FORCE DISCHARGE 1535 COMMAND DR,  FF ANDREWS  AFB. MD 207	
TO,
SAFIMll:lR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX  78 1 50-4742			

WING, Jw FLOOR
62-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	

FD2002-0185	

GENERAL:  The appl icant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general.

The appl icant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), without counsel, at Travis AFB, CA on February 4, 2003.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:  Exhibit  5:  Applicant's  Contentions; Exhibit 6: AFI 36-3208 Excerpt; Exhibit 7: 341 SFS/CC Notification Memorandum; Exhibit 8: Porterville Chief of Police Letter, 25 Nov 02; Exhibit 9: Basic Peace Officer training Certificate, 6 Jul 02; Exhibit  l 0: College of the Sequoias Certificat ion Letter, 6 Jul 02; Exhibit II: Tulare-Kings Pol ice Academy Course Completion Certificate, 11 Feb 02.

The attached brief contains availabl e pertinent data on the applicant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FINDI NGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge.  However, after a thorough review of the record, the Board finds that the applicant's character of discharge is inequitable.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge for Discharge in Lieu of Courtmartial. The record indicates the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ on two occasions for two failures to go, underage drinking, consuming alcohol withi n eight hours of duty, and making a false official statement. He also received two letters of reprimand one for unlawful possession of alcohol and the other for soliciting another to commit a crime (vandalism), vandalism (using a baseball bat to smash the back window on the truck owned by his minor girlfriend's father), and obstruction of justice (by telling a friend to say nothing about the vandalism). Notwithstanding the applicant's equivocation regarding his misconduct and his troubling attempt to shift bl ame for his actions on to other Air Force personnel, the Board detcnnined the applicant engaged in the misconduct alleged. Moreover, the applicant's abject unwi ll ingness to accept responsibility for his conductto include attempts to blame his superiors for his alcohol consumption and his incomprehensible failure to make restitution to the victim for the damage to the car he admitted he caused--was of extreme concern to the Board and suggested a troubling lack of character. The Board, nevertheless, felt obligated to upgrade the characterization of service. The Board detennined that the applicant's commander was in the process of discharging the appl icant for Misconduct with a general service characterization. For reasons that could not be ascertained by reviewing the file, the very same misconduct then became the subject of a court-marti al when charges were preferred against the applicant. There was utterly no documentation in the applicant's file explaining why discharge proceedings were halted and court-martial charges were preferred. Moreover, there was no documentation in the file explaining how the same misconduct then came to be used to justify a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. While it is Air Force policy to characterize service as UOTHC when granting a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial, that label must still be an accurate description of the individual's service. Air Force policy alone is simply not sufficient to justify the UOTHC service characterization in this case. Simply put, such a characterization does not correctly describe the applicant's service. The command's initial decision to characterize the same service as general reinforces this point. The absence of any explanation for the command's decision to alter the characterization of service for the worse compelled the Board to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt under these unique circumstances.	

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge  was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the d ischarge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board also concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a General discharge and that equitable considerations necessitated an upgrade.  The applicant's characterization  for discharge should be changed to general under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief