AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
11	PIP . ,
x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

92.15, A93.09 A93.01
A92.37

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

16 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00191

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, 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

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00191

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety or inequity that would justify an upgrade of the discharge to honorable.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. Member, who was a Security Forces specialist, was convicted at Summary Court Martial for helping two other Security Forces members make false Armed Forces ID cards, one of whom was subsequently arrested when he used the card at a civilian establishment. In a Stipulation of Fact, member admitted his involvement in the crimes. Although not given a punitive discharge, member's commander determined administrative separation was appropriate; it was noted that of the three perpetrators, member was the senior ranking. Additionally, he provided the supplies, equipment, and facility with which to later make the ID cards, and was the "necessary link" to the making of the false cards. Member's commander felt he was most culpable of the three as his involvement was greater than the other two airmen. During the consideration of clemency matters at the time of sentencing, member requested reduced confinement time; he was granted a reduction of 5 days. The Discharge Review Board concluded member's misconduct was an extremely significant departure from conduct expected of all military members, and not compatible with Air Force standards. In fact, for Security Forces (SF) personnel, crimes of this nature are among the worst offenses an SF member can commit. The record review indicated that member was deeply implicated in the offenses. The Board could find nothing in the record, no inequity or impropriety, on which to suggest a basis to upgrade the discharge.

Applicant further contended he made some errors in judgment due to the emotional strain of his best friend's death. While it is understandable that a member experiencing personal problems has additional stress, the applicant's problems were not unique and there is no evidence he sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain or Family Support Center. The Board did not find this issue of sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief