AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

MEMBER SITTING

I	··

x
x

	
	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
	3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
		COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
°FD"-20"0"3'-00164		ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	

ISSUES

A94.08

INDEX NUMBER	A71.00

I

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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, 3RD 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

FD-2003-00164	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to either an honorable or a general. The applicant appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) without counsel.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) was too harsh. After reviewing the respondent's record, the Board concluded the applicant's service should be characterized as general (vice honorable).

ISSUE: The applicant contends that his UOTHC discharge is too harsh because others who committed the same or similar offenses had their service characterized as general. The applicant submitted his resignation while he was pending court-martial action for cheating on an Air Force promotion test. Evidence to support the cheating charge included the applicant's statement in which he admitted to engaging in prohibited group study with another Air Force member.   The member with whom he cheated, SS.,, also provided a
statement in which he admitted cheating on the promotion test with the applicant. ·  tll took the
promotion test before the applicant. At the Board, the applicant admitted asking SSgtW if he learned anything on the test which could help him. Rather than face trial for this offense, the applicant requested to be separated administratively with a general discharge. The convening authority approved his request but directed he be separated with a UOTHC discharge. In the legal review which accompanied the applicant's resignation, the convening authority's Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) recommended the resignation be accepted. The SJA noted a case involving more egregious acts of cheating resulted in a punishment which
did not even include a reduction in rank.  The SJA also observed SSgt jlf punishment for this cheating
offense was limited to an Article 15 followed by an administrative separat10n with a general discharge. The
SJA stated, "SSgt		requested Chapter 4 discharge should be granted for consistency of treatment between SSgt	and his accomplice Mr.	" In reviewing the applicant's record, the Board could not find a compelling reason which would juSt'il'Y'iii1posing a more severe administrative separation than his accomplice. The Board observed that until he cheated on his promotion test, the applicant had a commendable service history. Although his decision to cheat makes an honorable discharge inappropriate, it was not so egregious as to warrant separation with a UOTHC.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board 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 applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an General discharge. The applicant's characterization should be changed to
General (vice UOTHC) under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief