AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

•	NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
.ulcmr	1 '11nrn r
TYPE GEN	X	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AlC	
RECORD REVIEW

YES	No

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

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

x , ,,
x
x

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

l	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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

08 Apr 2004	FD-2003-00491

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

.--

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

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

FD-2003-0049 1	

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

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  without  counsel.	Mr.
·- father, also testified.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 6:  Medical documents pertaining to left-heel, bone spur surgery performed in August 2001.

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or 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:  The applicant received a general discharge for misconduct (commission of a serious offense) and cited five issues:

Issue I . The applicant cited his desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The applicant has earned a Bachelors Degree in Health Systems Management since his discharge and wishes to pursue a higher level degree. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366), that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited as unfair the decision that was made concerning his discharge.  The DRB concurred and noted that the applicant had served almost six years total service before the discharge was initiated, that he had no previous derogatory information in his military records, and that he was not given a punitive discharge in his court-martial. Additionally, there was concern when the applicant testified that he had never been offered non-judicial punishment prior to being court-martialed, that he offered, but was denied, the opportunity to pay back the unauthorized phone charges he had incurred, that the control of cell
·phone use was loose within his unit and personal use was well known and wide spread, that the OSI investigation revealed that others in his unit had used their government cell phones for personal use, and that no one else was given a court-martial or non-judicial punishment.

Issue 3:  The applicant contends that discrimination was practiced concerning his discharge.  He stated that he was basically a one-man shop after his supervisor was promoted to another position within his work area and that this created some animosities among some of his co-workers due his relatively junior  (SRA) grade. Upon being demoted to A I C as a part of his court-martial sentence, he stated that his unit did not want him back in his previous job.   Although there is no documentary evidence to support applicant's claim, the Board noted that he was separated shortly after completing the portion of his court-martial sentence specifying seven days confinement and two months of hard labor.

Issue 4:  The applicant contends that he was punished twice regarding his court-martial offenses.  Although The Discharge Review Board agrees that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive	

requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, they felt that the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.

Issue 5: The application contends that the separation date on his DD Form 214 is incorrect and based on his discharge record and out processing file. He was advised that the DRB was not the proper forum to address this and that the Air Force Personnel Center would be so advised.

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. The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed to Honorable - Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief