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.	

TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE'W' BOARD
1535 COM'.1AND DR, EE \\'ING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-700!	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INJTIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN

x

RECORD REVIEW

'   NMIE OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES

No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

x
x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.02
A92.22 A46.02

INDEX NUlBER

A59.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA T!ON
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARIN:G DATE

CASE NUMBER

22 Feb 2005

FD-2004-00404

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl.\IBER

FD-2004-00404	

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 requested relief.

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 today's standards, the Board finds the applicant's characterization inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because of today's standards. The records indicated the applicant received a general discharge for making a statement he was homosexual. There  was  no evidence in the case file that he had engaged in misconduct concerning his homosexual tendencies. Therefore, an honorable discharge is appropriate. Today, airmen in similar situations would receive an honorable discharge, thus the inequity.

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 under the provisions of Title 10, USC  1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

i!i ·. .	fy {Jboc/-M tjlllj

:.;i; ··	\.D

. CJ	'

,>tt

..	.

W<UI

r tiv

L(, :) AiRfOR c.<.,

;	Ot\.	1	- <X 9- \ C\	li	llin	
Q.u_		f	\FR 3	

:'. :	
lL) .Q	\--\	d.		
1	p	h-d	

9 -I.

h.	a.Q.w	-M	<U_
d_ O	OJU>	. c{.{,t	na.o	a... ·	( · _

1- p

":.·	
'	·	'fYl o-.d	.:M	•
ii'- ii>	A.t.c.n.u..hd	·a.	o	'.¥<>'\

.	•
()(\

j\i_t	.	&	-lo	iJf:n,,.d ;;,.,. . I,;_,,

.

.	.	ct	r	·	-  J	·	- -?- -JJ'!"?!:'i.;:t

. J:,>·:·,·eJLii.··;.W· i .

J .	0-: w;.J.P	a	-	- --:? · . _. ...

. J)	. ¥ .a;t·	ct:t	but	f!hck  '	bJdd	
hLo	[)j) r{)J'/	&		
tfu	Rf'	·	l:u	L./.
W.e.	mwM	Jy.li	-tfu	rrv.td in	.1-Wi	,
·	

G;,lf

J: ·	-k	k	.	AW	<iM(JhY1,

1·

.	.  .
an	lih\
( +-le.	-lo
+	r
·A S A P.)