AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

TYPE GEN

YES	No
x

PERSONAL APP.1£ARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN
x

x

x

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A62.00

l	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
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

30 Aug 2005	FD-2005-00098

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will b·e used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00098	

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 the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received a General discharge due to fraudulent entry. It appears that when the applicant completed his Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, he marked block 23 as "no" to the question of: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense?" When in fact, he was charged with one count of Battery. The other charge of Domestic Battery was dismissed. However, he did indicate on the SF 86, at the bottom of block 23, that he was involved in a fight, but that the charges were dropped. The DRB opined that since the member served almost four years of active duty and had two excellent EPRs, that a General discharge was too harsh.

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