AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

' '

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAl.)

GRADE	I AFSN/SSAN

TYPE
UOTHC
COUNSEL YES

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAMf: OF COUNSEL AND OR  ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON
x x x x
x

GEN

VOTE 01' TllE BOARD

UOTllC	OTllER

DENY

ISSUES

INDEX NUMBER

EXlJ.IBITS SUBMITil!:D TO THE B0"1ill

AOl.13, AOI.43, A92.21, A94.05

A67.30	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

llF:AR.ING DATE
6 FEB 03

CASE NUMB£R
FD2002-0221

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE l:lO.A..RD
ADDlTJONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING   OF PERSONAL  APPERANCE  IJEAR!NG APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE mSCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
REMARKS

Case hea rd at Travis A FB, CA

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Boa rd.

DATE: 6 Fli:B 03

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DEClSIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0221	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable

The applicant's case was considered by the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Travis AFB, CA on February 6, 2003. The applicant did not appear.

The attached brief contains available perti nent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  The DRB grants the requested relief.
The ORB finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity and an impropriety that would justify an upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) service characterization from the Air Force Reserve for commission of a serious offense (theft of government property) and for unsatisfactory duty performance. He had a letter of reprimand for insubordi nation, poor attitude, and irresponsibility, and an Article 15 for theft of government property in the amount of $40. The member failed to respond to the notification of the discharge, which indicated a UOTHC characterization was the worst he could receive. The notification, however, failed to inform the applicant that he had a right to an administrative discharge board hearing. Having failed to respond, he waived his right to a discharge board hearing and to submit matters for consideration. The applicant now contends he did not steal any government property, but rather was taking it home in his privately owned vehicle in order to complete his military tasks, a practice he claims was necessary and sanctioned. This explanation was consistent with the applicant's reply to the 1988 Article 15 action.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board (ORB) concludes that the discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was an abuse of discretion of the discharge authority. As a procedural matter, the failure to inform the applicant he was entitled to an administrative discharge board hearing was a fatal error. The discharge regulation specifically requires notification of that right. Failure to provide notification of the critical right cannot be ignored. In addition, the DRB was not convinced that the misconduct, while harmful, could properl y be characterized as a serious offense. In that regard, the DRB determined that a discharge for commission of a serious offense was inappropriate and could not be sustained. As a substantive matter, the ORB found that the applicant's misconduct was insufficient to support a UOTHC characterization under any circumstances. That he failed to respond to the notification does not justify using a non-descriptive service characterization.

As a result, the applicant's characterization should be changed to honorable under the provisions of 10 USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief