AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	l

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (I-AST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GR·\DE

AFSN/SSAN
I

ITYl'E VOTH

SSGT	II I 11111.
I	PERSONAL      APPEAR.\NCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

COUNSEL	NMtE OF COUNSEL AND OR ORG.4.Nl'l.A'flON
HS      I    No
I  x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OJ' COUNSEL
I

I

ME.MBER SITTING

I	VOTE QF,TJIE BOARD	i
1---00N--..---G-E-N--. u  Tnc      ,--oTH- ER   ·   ;._._DENY	[

I	1 :

.  ---·------1	-+-----	---t------	r:-1

·-·· -------

A94.07

i-=1--4-_0_R_D_E_l__A_P_PO_INT_IN_G_T_H_E_B_O_A_R_D		j

ISSUES

A94.01

INDEX NUMBER

A75.00

A94.05

2	APPLICA TJON FOR REV !EW OF DJSCHARGE
1

3	LETTER OF NOTJFJCATlON
-------------------------
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDJTJONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

llEARING DATE	"cASE NUMBER

06 Apr 2005

FD-2004-00444

APPLl,C"N.'f:. iss '). :J!!E:	·s DECISWN. L JlATIONAJ., AJU;J.)lSC:VSSWON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIE. BQAllD DEClSlONAl. RATIONALE      ) • ..

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/\vithout counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

i	--,......- ....,...,.-......-..,...., .,•..•11 00". R s El rj EN"
TO:

-·.·.-.,..r....,.......,..---...,.....,,..........,.,.....      ---	oA "l E; 4" 16/ 2oos ......-	---	.

..

SAF/M RBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUJTE 40

AIR FORCE DJSCH. RGE REVIEW BOARn
•	
0

J

- s!5g_3c5_RCIOT_MAM_RYA__ONnF__TDHJ_(,EE_AEIRW_fI_NO_GR,C_lR_IP>JF:RLSO-O_ON_RN_EL_C_O__JN_C_J,
•	

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFH, MD 2C762·1G02

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V 2)	Previ ous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIKW BOARD DECISIONAL R"-TIONALE	CASE Nlll\'IBER

FD-2004-00444	
.

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

ISSUES:

Issues 1 & 3.  Applicant contends discharge was inequi table because it was too harsh and based on one isolated incident.  The records indicated the applicant accepted a Chapter 4 discharge in lieu of court-martial. Member was going to be court-martialed for unauthorized sale of military property.  The applicant was a member oflaw enforcement and is held to a higher standard.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members--especially law enforcement.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, letters ofrecommendation,  and other accomplishments.   The DRB also recognized the fact that the applicant had served 11 years total service before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the applicant's  misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time in the Air Force.  They found the seriousness of the
willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 4.	The applicant contends his counsel was ineffective.  This issue is without merit.  The records reflect member consulted counsel and requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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.

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