AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

A I C
x	RECORD REVIEW

Jiii I_

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND Ok ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x

x
x

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x

x

JSSUES

A02.04

IND.E.X NUMBER

A67.90

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICA T!ON  FOR REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00265

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

..:- ......................................................."'J.. ................................................................................................................................................   ..

..

-:.
..

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUCIL AIR FORCE D1SCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDRE\\'S AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous editjon wiB be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE l'o"t:MBER

FD-2004-00265	

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:  The Board grants the reliefrequested.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, but after a thorough review of the record, the Board identified an impropriety as detailed below.

Issue I.  Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and a vacation of suspended punishment for misconduct. The misconduct included theft, making a false official statement, failure to go, writing bad checks, and maintaining a romantic relationship with his supervisor's wife. At the time of the discharge, after consulting with legal counsel, member submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting he be retained, or in the alternative that he be given an honorable discharge. He noted he had been negatively impacted by adverse events in his life, including the death of his grandfather. However there was no evidence in the record that the member had availed himself of available services to assist him in dealing with his added stress, such as the chaplaincy, life skills clinic, or family support center. The DRB opined that through the unit's administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior but was unwilling or unable to do so. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members, and did not condone member's behavior.

Issue 2. During its review, the Board discovered the applicant was entitled to an administrative discharge board (ADB), as his total service (inactive during the delayed enlistment program and active) exceeded 6 years. There was no indication in the record that he was provided an opportunity to contest his discharge at an ADB. The Board determined that in light of the importance of the rights given in a board hearing (including the right to confront and question his accusers, to present evidence and testimony from favorable witnesses and the opportunity to personally present his case and testify before a panel of three disinterested officers), applicant did not receive his full due process rights. There was substantial doubt that the discharge characterization would have remained the same had applicant requested an ADB. Thus, the Board concluded the failure to offer him an ADB was a prejudicial error and the discharge should be upgraded.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that although the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, it was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the applicant was not provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes the discharge should be upgraded to honorable under the provisions of Title 10 USC, Section 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief