AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	-GRADE

FSN/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

A67.l0

X+*
x
X+*
x

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

A92.24	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION

HMRING PATE

13 MARCH 2002

CASE NUMBER
FD-2002-0293

4	BRIEF Of PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tiffi BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMA
Case heard at Washington, D.C,

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

+ Secretarial Authority

* Upgrade of RE Code

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR EE WING, 3Ro FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB. MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM 02077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002 0120	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and to change the reason for the discharge.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB, Maryland on 13 March 2003.
The following exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #6:	Two Letters of Recommendation
Exhibit #7:	College Transcript
Exhibit #8:	AF Form 899 (PCS Order)
Exhibit #9:	2 Letters of Commendation (18 March 2000 and 9 August 2000)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to his discharge.

FINDINGS: The discharge is upgrade to Honorable and the reason for discharge is changed to Secretarial Authority. Change in RE code is approved.

Issues. The applicant received a General Discharge on 21 May 2001 for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The applicant committed a series of minor infractions over the course of his 1 year and 2 months of military service, beginning with his use of a codeine-containing medication, which was not prescribed to him, but which he was offered and accepted for relief of a headache. The applicant received a waiver of this offense and was retained on active duty. The next significant offense involved the member's unauthorized absence from his assigned dormitory and his underage consumption of alcoholic beverages, while staying at an off-base motel. For this offense the applicant received an Article-15 and was remanded to Correctional Custody. The applicant does not deny either of the aforementioned offenses, but presented testimony that he only wanted to spend time with his girlfriend prior to his upcoming PCS to Kadena AB, Japan. It is the occurrence of an incident while the applicant was in Correctional Custody, which ultimately resulted in his discharge, and upon which the DRB based its decision to grant the applicant relief. The applicant was given his second Article-15 for assaulting a fellow "correctee" during an indoctrination of "newbees", a term for newcomers to the correctional facility. The applicant denies inflicting harm to anyone, and that he was only trying to prevent an unintended injury by attempting to remove a sharp object from a fellow "correctee's" hand. After making an unsuccessful attempt, the applicant states that he  retreated and was no longer involved in the indoctrination activities. The Board opined the indoctrination, in which the applicant and several other members participated, was likely known to supervisory authorities
and considered it plausible the applicant had no intent to do personal harm by attempting to remove a sharp object (pen) from a fellow "correctee's" hand.  The DRB considered the signed statements from the several witnesses (also participants), the almost universal inconsistencies in each version of who initiated or was directly involved in the assaulting behavior, some of which reflected the applicant was far.removed from inflicting any trauma, the applicant's post-service successes in college, and the position of high trust and responsibility he has attained in the food service industry, in granting relief to the applicant

CONCLUSIONS:   The Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of the	

applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority.  The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed to Honorable and Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief