I.	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

.....

•

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AL APPEARANCE

GRADE

x	I

RECORD REVIEW

YES	Na
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AD OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUl'iSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

............... .............. .............. .............. ..... ----------------1-----+------+----+-----+----1
x x x x
x

ISSlTES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A70.00

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

HEARJNG  DATE	CASE NUMBER

24 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00530

Case heard at Washington, O.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

--....-----.......................................................(./Jci.	II..r.....I....:.......·,	,

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150·4742

FROM:

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FORCE  rERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMM..\ ND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,     D 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous edition '"'ill be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00530	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received resigned for the good of the service and received an under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge. Although the personnel records are missing from the file, the Charge Sheet shows a charge for a violation of Article 86 and a charge for a violation of Article 123a under the UCMJ. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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