AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
c	- - - --- --- '" • "'......  ........ "'-r 1\,nn.ru v Il'l,/"JTIAL)	GRADE
	I

x

'----	-
TYPt.. Lrt:N	I	•   ..	.... ,,..,·· <CE	I	RECORD REVIEW
--;-;-  --(01.JNS):t;·: . NAME Of COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZTION	ADDRESS  AND  OR  0RGANl7..ATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
•.:>:.c • • • • • ·T/;• ·.·· 'Yh ;Y11• ''·
MEMBER SITTING		HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x
--

ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX NU BER	A67.50

••• • •	•• • •,JJ:){!flll.IT	Jll\;llJfEf<:)l:Ji!mi	ll[rrd',1•:f;':;.t•
I	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
ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARJl'i'G DATE	CASE  NUIB[R

..

01 Feb 2005	FD-2004-00306
• •	-.	..	···-·· •.• CC  ye   . ..

-;; ---.-:  ---'.°':'OJ

-- :_;;,-c- -'  ----:	.... ;.··'

.. .

Case heard at Washington, D.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

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

-	-	l	uJJ	I

.

-:''·--::: - - ,'----	; . - - ''/ ·::·_,; -f'.:" 1--	·.   ·..  .·	.	T	;; --·.: ·• ·-;;:' .• ·•· ·. •·;,o• ,,

\7

- -
m	FROM:
SAF/M RBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEi. COUNCIL

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJE\Y BOARD
1535 C01'11J\1A:'\'D DR_ EE \\llNG,3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742	AJ'tiDREWS AFB, MD .20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAJ'I 00	( EF-V2)	Previous edition 'vi]] be used

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

FD-2004-00306	
GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorable,  to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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 partial relief;  the discharge is upgraded to honorable.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon  the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's discharge inequitable.

Issue I .  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles  15 for misconduct, separated by a 15-month period.  His first Article 15 was for underage drinking and failure to go.  The last one was for off-base public indecency and reckless driving. Applicant disputed the validity of the second Article 15 claiming that the elements of the alleged offenses were not satisfied and he had not willfully committed the acts.  Because of his claimed innocence, he felt discharge was too harsh.  With regard to this Article 15, the ORB disagreed with the applicant's assertions, and concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.
The characterization of applicant's discharge based on this alone might otherwise have been found to be appropriate were it not for a separate set of circumstances, as reflected in Issue 2 below.

Issue 2.  The record reflects that part of member's punishment on his first Article 15 was a 30-day restriction to base.  Member was subsequently tried by Special Court Martial on two specifications, for allegedly violating restriction to base, and making a false official statement regarding his whereabouts.  He pied not guilty, and was found not guilty, to both charges.  Nevertheless, he remained assigned to base details and
was never returned to his primary duties or any other career field duties for the 13-month period until his discharge.  It was during the 9•h month of being assigned to base details that his second Article 15 offenses occurred off base.  After the local police transferred jurisdiction  to the base, member received the Article 15 and was recommended  for discharge.  While the ORB did not condone applicant's misconduct, they took  note of the applicant's duty performance and concluded it was inequitable to fail to return him to his primary duties or other similar duties following his court martial acquittal.  Failure to do so may have contributed to his subsequent incident of misconduct.  The Board therefore concluded the characterization of discharge was inequitable on this basis alone.  The Board did not however feel there was sufficient basis on which to  change the reason and authority for the discharge, or to change applicant's reentry code.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief