AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
•••

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
W ll BI

TYPE

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
'' NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

--	-	x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

ISSUES

A94.ll A93. 15

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

x x x x

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

23 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00224

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

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 DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00224	

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

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 applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for commission of a serious offense. During the period of enlistment from which he was administratively discharged, he had three Letters of Reprimand for unacceptable behavior which included misuse of a government vehicle after obtaining it by deceit, twice misrepresenting himself as a commissioned officer,  falsifying  official documents, and downloading pornographic material on a government computer.  The  record  review disclosed thorough documentation concerning each offense. At the time of the  discharge  proceeding, applicant was notified by certified mail of his right to an administrative  discharge  board,  but  failed  to respond within the allotted time, and thus effectively waived his right to a board. Applicant now contends he was made an example of, and infers racial prejudice played a part in the chain of command decision to separate him with a UOTHC. This contention could not be verified through a review of the records or matters submitted by applicant. In view of applicant's serious misconduct over a 9-month period, the seriousness of the criminal offenses for which he was discharged, and the fact that he received all of his full due process rights, the Board could find no inequity or impropriety that warrants an upgrade or change of 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.

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