AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEM B:R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
r·----------------------
------------------------

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN
-'   ---------------'

'

'
I  • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

TYPE GEN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
I

x	I	RECORD    REVIEW

iu:<Yt fQIJN!!EL   J,j  NAME OF COUNSF,L AND OR 0l{GANl7,ATION ,
YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR Ol{GANIZA TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

IION	GEN	UOT!IC

·----'·"-
OTHER	DENY

'

--------------------------------------- '	x *+

--------------------------------------- '·

x *+
x *+
x *+
x *+

ISSUES	A92.35 AOI.07

INDEX NUMBER	A67.30

1	ORDER APPOINTING TIIE BOARD

A94.05	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOT! f l CATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TH E BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Of
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DAT!:

CAS!; NUMBER

-· '-··--i

24 May 2006	FD-2005-00330
APl'LlCl\1·1'':$: ! SUE /\NU {J,,oARP .' )!" )t······•""" " '	RA'flONA_L	+•+·+•r ..-   . ..        tlli A''"'  •.,,•. " .   ' m ARc iiE'R iw	. R·.,_.•_... _.•_,, _..._._··..-·• -. "•..'.

K::ase heard at Washington, D.C.

li\dvise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a persona l appearance with/without counsel, and the right to u bmit an appl ication to the AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's req uest

* Reason and Authority
H-  Reenlistment Code

 '- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • - • • • • - • • • • - • - • • - •	.!II!.. ........ . r II	.!!'I
INDORSE:MENT
>---	""".......,.y-;·•'•"'·"-'-'-·'""-'--- ---------- =--
TO:
SAF/MR BR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

DA"i"l!IW 513(Ji!006
--'---"---- --	""'----' ..........•.  ,,,,---------
SECRETARY OF TH 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 be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00330	
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 (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,  change  of  reason  and  authority   for  discharge,   and  change  of reenlistment code are denied.

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

ISSUE:

Issue 1.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh for one isolated incident in 30 months of service.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article  15 for misconduct.  The
Article 15 stated the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligentl y failed to maintain current registration on his vehicle; resisted being apprehended by 35111 Security Forces; and operated a vehicle in a reckless manner by driving at a high rate of speed and failing to stop at a posted stop
sign.  This misconduct resulted in reduction in grade to airman basic and restriction to Misawa AB for thirty days.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  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 of recommendation and other accomplishments.  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 3.  Applicant contends the discharge was improper because the 35111 FW/CC informed him that he  would receive an honorable discharge.  The DRB took note of applicant's contention and determined that the 35111 Fighter Wing Commander was not the final discharge authority.  The administrative discharge was properly elevated to the next level of command, 5111 Air Force Commander, who directed an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  The DRB concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

Issue 4.  Applicant claims he was questioned by Security Forces members without a rights advisement, in violation of Article 31, U CMJ, and that his discharge was improperly based on these statements.  The applicant was represented by counsel for both his Article 15 and his administrative discharge and submitted a response to each action.  Neither response claimed a violation of Article 31.  The applicant fai led to provide sufficient evidence to the Board to show that his Article 31 rights were violated.  Instead, the summary of the Security Forces interview with the applicant, AF Form 3545, indicates the investigators had no reason to suspect the applicant of a crime until he spontaneously confessed after being advised to tell the	

truth.  Moreover, the applicant stated on the attachment to his DD Form 293 that the Security Forces members were surprised when he "blurted out 'I did it!"' At that point, the applicant was read his rights.  He requested a lawyer and the interview was terminated .  The Board found no impropriety in the Security Forces interview.

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 ex ists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief