AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

"'AME OF SERVICE :\1EJ\ IBEk (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN

YES	Nu
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
AME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGA...,IZATJON

AB
RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS A...,-D OR ORGANIZATION 01<' COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.ll A92.21 A93.01 A93.05 A93.07 A94.05 A90.07

INDEX NUMBER

A67.09

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXH IBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Oct 2004	FD-2004-00038

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.

.

.

·.-----------------------------------------------..1.    ----------------------------------------------------------------     .
r'

-	·······	··

.......-...........---.... .............................. .............. ............. ....................................... .	.

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE RE'\-lE\\'' BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE 'WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREll'S AFB, MD 20762-700?

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition \vill be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE  NLTl\1BER

FD-2004-00038	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.
Review  Board  (DRB)  at Andrews  AFB  MD  on  19 October  2004.	The applicant's father, •m• B IF.
The  applicant  personally  appeared  via  video-teleconference  from  Travis  AFB  CA before  the  Discharge

..	.also testified before the Board.

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:

Issue 1: Applicant contends his discharge was improper because the Air Force prosecuted him for a crime  for which the civilians were not going to prosecute him.  This contention is without merit.  The military justice system is independent of the civilian system and is not bound by the civilian decision not to prosecute a particular case.

Issue 2:  The applicant contends his discharge was improper because the commander denied him access to an attorney.  At the hearing he was unable to specify when he was denied access to an attorney.  He stated he thought it was during his Article 15, but the records indicate he was given time to consult with an attorney, did so, and did not ask for a delay in the proceedings.  He also consulted counsel regarding his
administrative discharge and submitted matters for the separation authority's consideration.

Issue 3:  The applicant claims his discharge was improper because the offense for which he was court­ martialed should have been handled through non-judicial punishment.  The disposition of an offense lies within the discretion of the commander.  The applicant presented no evidence the commander abused his discretion by deciding to take the charge to a court, and in light of the applicant's previous misconduct the decision to court-martial the applicant was reasonable.

Issue 4:  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too severe compared with today's standards.  The records indicated the applicant was court-martialed, received an Article 15, a Letter  of Reprimand, four Records oflndividual Counseling and was decertified from his duty for misconduct.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded his misconduct was a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge is in accordance with today's standards.

Issue 5: Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because of his age and deprived background (the applicant explained at his personal appearance that he meant his failed marriage when he referred to his deprived background).  The applicant's misconduct did not appear to be significantly linked to the applicant's marital status.  The applicant's father appeared before the Board with the applicant and testified to the stable and sheltered nature of the applicant's childhood.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence he was particularly immature or did not know right from wTong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-	

term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards.

Issue 6: Applicant contends his post-service activities justify an upgrade. The DRB noted that the applicant was attending college, but did not find that justifies upgrading the applicant's 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