AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

..._...•. •

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE
Former Arnn

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
. .. ,:

I	RECORD    REVIEW

,;::;,;;,   NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
yOTE   OF.TH:Ef'  BOARQ	<' '.>l	,·. .·· . ....
1- - --,---·-,

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----· ----------+-------1-----+------+----+	I
x x
x
----------------+------1------f-----+-------+---	1
x
I>
x
----------------------------------------   '

ISSUES

A94.ll

INDEX NUMBER	A75.00

lnr:...···..·	EH. JBITS SJ.JBl\1..J..·T>·•·T »... 71'.....o..._,,,T.,.....·H.-,< < E·-- BO'  ' "A.:·R>,, D

A92.37 A93.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3	LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Oct 2004	FD-2003-00270

Case heard at Andrews AFB MD via video teleconference with Travis AFB CA.

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

FD-2003-00270	

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

The applicant personally appeared before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) via video-teleconference  from Travis AFB CA with Andrews AFB MD on 22 October 2004.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. The following additional documents were submitted during the hearing:
Exhibit 5:  Loyola Law School Transcript, 13 September 2004
Exhibit 6.  CA State University at Long Beach Transcript, 22 October 2004 Exhibit 7.  Resum  ,
. ""'	..
FINDINGS:	Upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable  is  denied;  however,  the  Board  grants  upgrade  of  the discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety at the time of  issuance that would justify a change of  the  basis  for  discharge; however, after careful review of the evidence in the record and that presented by the applicant, the board finds that there are certain equitable factors which significantly mitigate the egregiousness of the applicant's offenses and justify upgrade of the discharge characterization from under other than honorable conditions to under honorable conditions (general).

ISSUES:

Issue 1:  The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because his chain of command improperly (arbitrarily and capriciously) decided to punish him more severely than was warranted because of a desire to make an example of him.  Contrary to the applicant's assertions, the DRB believes his chain of command's actions in prosecuting him were reasonable given the seriousness of the charges against the applicant.

Issue 2:  The applicant contends his personality disorders substantially contributed to causing his misconduct and that the Air Force should have diagnosed him earlier, which would have resulted in his receipt of an honorable discharge. The DRB viewed the applicant's personal problems as a matter in extenuation and mitigation of the reason for discharge because they contributed significantly to his misconduct.  An earlier diagnosis might have resulted in a more favorable discharge characterization.   Absent the personality disorders he may not have committed the misconduct or had such a difficult relationship with his chain of	
command.  Nonetheless, the applicant did engage in serious misconduct for which he was legally and
mentally responsible.

Issue 3:  The applicant contends he was not guilty of some of the charged offenses or was guilty of a lesser included offense.  This contention does not change the fact the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge rather than face a court-martial and that he knew he faced a possible under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Nor does it change the fact that there are a significant number of charges which the applicant admits he did commit.

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 regarding the applicant's personal mental problems  and their direct relationship to the  misconduct, the Board further concludes that the  overall  quality  of  applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a  general discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant's characterization should be changed to general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Title  10, USC  1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief