AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
: f: f:	::::: t: NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

SSgt
I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No

MEMBER SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X*
x

X* X*
X*
6
i:.."-'SUE,- A94-.0=6---········,;.0;:xNUM>ER.'-- A-6-1.J-o---------+-;1;;-n==n=n=w=E2"•"=·•..•m•·.•=-•.=1m•-•· ===•·•··"•-•'.••.•=•-•·==x=•.•••-A-.-1J1:1f!-'•H.·.•w==1i"P;!=U.\)"ID'"Jn""···'w•==; =. r·n-".,..'
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

04 Dec 2003	FD-2003-00165

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas.

AdW;e applicant of the decision of the Board.

* Secretarial Authority

.------····-----····-----····-----····-----····-----····-----····----'-t....:::_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i	f	1
''

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET  WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FOR.CE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1:535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 10762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00165	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.	
		
of the Texas Veterans Commission.
The following additional evidence was presented by the applicant at his hearing: Exhibit #6:  DD Form 457, 9 Nov 87, Article 32 Investigation (4 pages)
Exhibit #7:  OSI Report Excerpt, Report # 876804-24
Exhibit #8:  JAM Letter, 14 Apr 87
Exhibit #9   Letter from MSgt	5 Mar 90
Exhibit #10: AF Form 332, BCE Work Request, 22 Sep 86 Exhibit #11: Statement from MSgt	Jan 88
Exhibit #12: Letter from MSg Ol?PO 25 Jan 89
Exhibit #13: Extract of DLAM 4145.2, Table A-16 Exhibit #14: Statement from MSgt,_, 14 Mar 89
Exhibit #15: AF Form 3132, Equipment Inventory, Undated Exhibit #17: Statement from Capt  I	•n30 Nov 88
Exhibit #16: Letter from Cap	21 Dec 88

Exhibit #l8: Summary of Testimony by	·
Exhibit #19: Transcript of Deposition ofndated Exhibit #20: Letter from LtCol Sdi!b& tl.Jndated

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

FINDINGS: The discharge is upgraded to Honorable.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor 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 reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because the discharge authority was deprived of additional evidence, which if made available in a timely manner, may have exonerated him of the offense for which he was discharged. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, the first one for wrongfully soliciting other Airmen to make false official statements and for being derelict in the performance of his duties.  The other Article 15 was for attempting to steal two video cassette recorders.
Significant to the latter offense,  and that which ultimately resulted in the applicant's discharge was the appearance of a planned theft, by the identification of two packages, wrapped in plain brown paper, with no	

The applicant appeared before the DRB at Randolph AFB, Texas and was represented by d£  IJ [	f  S

address or identifying markings, other than a P (for Panasonic) on one and an H (for Hitachi) on the other. The applicant subsequently asked for and was granted delays in further processing of his discharge, pending receipt of expected witness statements on his behalf.  However, due to no fault of the applicant (caused by delays in mail due to contamination), two letters from members of the applicant's supervisory chain were ultimately received, which fully explains the reason for the packaging of the VCRs; the packaging was directed by the applicant's supervisor for later delivery to a dormitory.	The delivery of the VCRs to the dormitory was further delayed, pending completion of a work order to construct a device to secure the VCRs, as this was a high theft item on the base.  The Board opined the information which was not made available to the discharge authority resulted in an ine uity in the processing of the applicant's discharge.

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 Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. In addition, the Re-enlistment Code should be changed to 3K.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief