AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INIT14.L)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

SRA

11

                                                                                                                                             IHllllll7

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

R SITTING
_--------------	>---H-ON --	1----GEN--	1-U-OTHC  +	-O-THER -	l--DENY
x	
					x	
					x	
					x	
					x	

MEMBE
..........·····.............·····....";'

--------------------------------------

SSUES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A75.00

l	ORDER APPOINTJNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFJCA TJON
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED A  TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE  NUMBER

03 Dec 2004	FD-2004-00285

Case heard at Washington, D.C

Adyise 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.

----..--------------	--............ --·'·----- ---............ ---,c...:.J-----............ ----.......... ----....•••····•••••····•••••··:

-e"?i  "'	WJl\'l-!-J'l'iY';lt ::7; !{"i:'

-------------·
,, "	_:1JJS9·m-IT:f:,'-011;	t ; ::r f;81J fmi !t7:4f Jmt		;"

ro:

SAF/MRBR
5SO C STREET WEST SUI  E 40

<'

I	SECRETARY O.F THE AIR FORCE PILRSONNEL COUN(ll.
AlR f'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
153 COMMA D DR. EE \\'l:\G, JRD FLOOR

RA,'-'DOLPH  AFB, T    78  .04742

I	A "iDRE\\;S AFB, ,\ID 20i62-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NU.\JBER

FD-2004-00285	

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

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

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged pursuant to his request to be discharged in lieu of trial by court martial. Member was charged with wrongfull y displaying, receiving, or storing pornographic images on his government computer on divers occasions, and with wrongfully or knowingl y possessing, receiving, or displaying child pornography to the discredit of the armed forces. Although the chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge, and  member acknowledged in his request to be discharged that he would likely receive a  UOTHC,  the  convening authority expressly determined that member's service would be more appropriately characterized as under honorable conditions (general) after reviewing all of the evidence and character statements submitted, and determining the child  pornography charge would be dismissed. Applicant now comes noting  his post­ service accomplishments and that he is "not a bad person."  The Board  concluded member's  misconduct was a particularly serious failure to meet Air Force standards and an extremely significant departure from conduct expected  of all military members. His misconduct was sufficient reason for receiving a general discharge. The Board further notes that applicant voluntarily submitted his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court martial , thus not attempting to establish his innocence or present any extenuating or mitigating factors.  In doing so he acknowledged that under these circumstances his characterization of service could be deemed  UOTHC  in accordance with discharge  regulations,  wherein  airmen so discharged  usually do	
have their service characterized  as UOTHC.	The Board found no wrongful  action by the Air Force, and could find no inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade to the discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the proced ural 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