..

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
•t

••n

NAME OF SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FJRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

•111•

TYPE

x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

llJ	mr;NAME 'OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES		No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

x x x

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

ISSUES

AOl.40; A92.36, A94.06; A93.02

INDEX NUMBER

A70.00

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF  PER_SO_N_N EL_ _F_IL_E	------- COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD

---1

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF

24 Oct 2003	FD2003-00029

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Albany, New York.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 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, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00029	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared before the Board without counsel at Albany, New York, on  24  Oct  03.  The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5:  Applicant 's contentions.
Exhibit 6: Undated character letter from , Hyatt Regency Buffalo, NY
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge to under honorable conditions (general) is granted.
The Board finds that although upgrade of the characterization of the discharge to honorable is not warranted by the evidence, upgrade to a general discharge is warranted. Upgrade of the reenlistment code is not warranted.

ISSUES:

The applicant contends it was unfair to discharge him under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) because he was a model airman during his first 26 months of service. He believes he was misrepresented by his military defense counsel and was never given any other option than to request discharge in lieu of court­ martial. He stated that he was immature at the time of the misconduct and that he has learned from his mistakes. The applicant was separated UOTHC in lieu of court-martial on charges of conspiracy to commit wrongful appropriation of a government vehicle and wrongful appropriation of a government vehicle following a unit Christmas party. The respondent and another airman wrongfully took a government vehicle and damaged the mirror and smoke stack on the vehicle. The respondent was intoxicated at the time of the offense.  Although  the  Board  believes  the  respondent   was   culpable   in   his   actions,   it   did   not believe that his misconduct warranted discharge UOTHC. The Board agreed with the applicant that the characterization was too harsh and that the case did not warrant trial by court-martial. The Board did not, however, conclude that the applicant's counsel misrepresented him. There was nothing in the record to support that assertion. The Board also concluded that the applicant's misconduct did not  warrant  an honorable discharge or a change in reenlistment code.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of  the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full 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 reflected by an under honorable conditions (general).  The applicant's
characterization  of discharge  should  be  changed  to  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  under  the provisions of Title I0, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief