AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)
.-------------------------------------- .

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

-1- - - - - -	ON AL  APPEARANCE

A B	'----------------'

 		cQ=.u...N..l.i.:.E.J.._l···l .......... NAMF: OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANf7,,;.TJON YES		I	No
I x

I	RECOR D  REVIEW
ADDRF.SS AND OR OllGANIZA TION OF CO!JNSl:L

V@!Ulll :OF THE BOAl.llU

MEMBER SITTING	HON
'---------------------------------------
.. ;
'
'
--:'

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x
x

'	x
>-l
'	x
x
---------------------------------------   ·

ISSUES

A94.ll A92.35 A92.21 A93.0 I A92.01 A92.03 A91.05 A93.l5 A94.05

INDEX NUMBl".R	A68.00

EXHIBITS SHBM:liliili:ED TO!J!HE...BO.ARD
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DlSCIIARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL PILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl lE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Or
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Hl!;ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Ma r 2006	FD-2004-00081

APPLICANT'S  ISSUE

Case heard at Wash ington, D.C.

. ' RATIONAL Al!il!JJtilS(:USSED oli!:!IJIIBAtTAtH8D AIR •• '"

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an appl ication to the AF BCMR. N ames and votes will be made avai l able to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

- l	l!.4!1_C:	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ [r;N_	iu:_ 9!1_B_	!!J'!.":_'! - ---- - - - - - - - - -

.-- ----- ---- ----\:7"- - --- -- ----- ----- -IN".>oiisi-Mfi;p-------c - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DATE 3!!!12006.

TO:

')- AoFc1Msr

··T· w-E- s·.-.1-. st111··E-' 4_0 	

-----· ------ .      . ····[·r FRO---M-,   -- -; {  YD ,ll  v   /	t:L c.ouCIL

.	·   ·	1535 COMMAND D!I ,!:)!; WING, JR)) FLOOll
RANDOLPH AFl:l, TX 78150-4742	AND1!1£WS 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-2004-00081	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DR B), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 28 Mar 2006. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5(1) & 5(2): Character Reference Letters. The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the appl icant 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 applicant justifies a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant received a bad conduct discharge at a special court-martial for breaking restriction and for striking a 15-year old female in the chest with his fist  I le contends that his punitive discharge is unjust and clemency is warranted because:  (1) his "average conduct and efliciency ratings/behavior and proficiency mark (sic) were very good;" (2) he received awards and decorations; (3) he has been a "great citizen" since his discharge; (3) his court-martial was for "isolated or minor offenses;" (4) his court-martial punishment was harsh and disproportionate to other cases; (5) his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity; (6) he faced discrimi nation; (7) he was harassed by his command; (8) he was stressed ; and
(9) because he pied guilty for a crime he didn 't commit.

The records indicated the applicant received three Article 15 actions, one Article 15 Vacation action, one Letter of Reprimand, three Letters of Admonishment and other low level counseling.  The applicant's Article 1Ss were for theft, DUI, and assault on a female airman by striking her in the face with his fist  The records also indicated that the applicant was pending involuntary discharge for a pattern of misconduct prior to the commission of the offenses that l ead to hi s bad cond uct discharge.  The command recommendation under
the administrative action was that he receive an und er other than honorable cond itions (UOTHC) discharge.

The DRB recognized that the applicant received an Army Achievement Medal for feeding Army personnel transiting his duty station enroute to Operations DESERT SIIIELD/STORM and that he received the Air Force Good Conduct Medal.  The DRB also saw, however, in the appl icant's three Enlisted Performance Reports (with overall ratings of 4, 3, and 3), that he while he was described variousl y as a "satisfactory," "good" or "excellent" duty performer, there were also negative comments on his ability to adhere to Air Force standards.  The DRB also recognized that the appl icant was nearly 24 years of age when he committed the offenses for which he was tried.

The DRB was not convinced that the applicant was harassed or discriminated against in light of the long list of misconduct across two different duty stations.  The DR B was also not convinced that the applicant's recent assertion that he didn't commit the crime was credible in light of contrary statements in his court­ martial stipulation of fact and his sworn testimony during the military judge's inquiry into the facts surrounding his guilty plea.  The DR B also did not find the applicant's bad conduct discharge to be harsh or disproportionate given the nature of the offenses for which he was convicted and his previous pattern of disciplinary failures.  While the DRB was disappoi nted to hear that the applicant had another DUI post discharge, it was pleased that the applicant was doing well and had a good job.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant's punitive discharge by Special Court-Martial is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief