AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
AlC	••

TYPE  GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

'        -------------------------------------

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

ISSUES

A93.19 A92.21 AOl.43 AOl.23

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

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

06 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00462

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	T, 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

FD2003-00462	
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 the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions. He had two Articles 15; his misconduct included sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife, and assaulting a civilian male. Applicant now claims that the woman raped him when he was intoxicated and couldn't comprehend the event. He claims he attempted to tell his squadron section commander, but found it embarrassing, and was laughed at because people do not typically believe women can commit rape against men. Applicant provided no supporting documentation of these claims, thus the Board found his assertions without merit and could not substantiate an inequity or impropriety with regard to this issue.

Issue 2. Applicant claims the civilian man he assaulted threw the first punch and applicant was defending himself. Applicant again notes that he was intoxicated at the time of this incident. Applicant provided no supporting documentation of these claims, thus the Board found these assertions without merit and could not substantiate an inequity or impropriety with regard to this issue.

Issue 3. Applicant notes he was not allowed to finish the alcohol rehabilitation program he was enrolled in before he was administratively separated, and surmises had he been able to finish the program he may have continued successfully in the service. Applicant provided no supporting documentation of these claims, thus the Board found these assertions without merit and could not substantiate an inequity or impropriety with regard to this issue.

Issue 4. Applicant cites his post-service accomplishments as justification for an upgrade. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the records review. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Because member's discharge file was missing from the record and unavailable for review, the Board was unable to ascertain if there was other misconduct on member's part, or additional bases for the discharge. The Board also could not determine if member consulted counsel or submitted statements on his own behalf at the time of the discharge. Lacking evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper and without basis for an upgrade. No inequity or impropriety could be found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

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