AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

'------------------------------ ·'

r---------------

'

'	'	SRA	''	'
'    ----------------------------- '·	'-----------------'
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x I	RECORD  REVIEW
C(!tJNSEL	NAllH;OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TlON OF COUNSfi:l,
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTl lC	OTHER	DEN Y

.

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

.

·---------------------------------------

x	+*
x	+*
x	+*

ISSUES	A93.02	INDEX NUMBER	A00.58	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A02.02	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
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	CASI: NUMBER

3 August 2006	FD-2006-00041
Al'l'LlCAN:r'S'l-Pll'Arm rt'l.dlOARIYS DECISIONAi.. RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE AT'lACt!W AI R FORCE DISCHARGE!\EVlEW  BOARD DECISJONAL RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an appl ication to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the appl icant at the appl icant's request.

+ Reason & Authority

/

* RE Code

.5!<;i !IM!l'!OO!J1PE. .LJ...z.4........................J !i?.!!'§2-<!1,'. !?_R_D_	l,!l_E,!"_T_ •• _...... •••••••/.?••••••••••••••••••••••
'''
'

'
:Jtft._...

 	"11111  •111  11  11 	m••=· =· ••= = =•••••••••• 		 	• 	DA'f'E1 «ttma1Hi6  .

. .INDORSEMENT

·%.' .	. ...

,,---· ..,..... -····'·'  '""'""'·"\··'···""	"'""' ·"·    '	"··--  -· """ '''""'"''   ••      • 1•   •  •• 1•   ••••• 1• •••••••• o.1•• 1uu	-- '

TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	ECRETARY OF TUR AIR FOii.Cf: Pl<:RSONNEI. COUNCii.
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, i:E WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD ZU76z-700Z

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00041	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for an upgrade of d ischarge to Honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reen listment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but decl ined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available perti nent data on the appl icant and the factors leadi ng to the discharge.

FINDINGS: The appl icant's discharge is upgraded to Honorable. Change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The applicant  submitted no issues contesting  the equity or propriety of his discharge. However, after  a thorough review of the record, the Board identified an impropriety bel ieved to have substantia l ly affected the preparation of the applicant's defense and the u ltimate outcome of h is administrative action.

ISSUE: The applicant cited h is desire for an upgrade of discharge so that he can receive the G.I. Bi l l benefits and pursue training in order to "earn h igher wages to support [his] child  and  [himself]."  The  records  ind icated  the applicant received an Article 15 in November 1999 and a suspended red uction in grade for sleeping wh i le performing sentry duty and one Letter of Reprimand, dated 18 September 2000, pursuant to a civi l ian conviction, on or about 24 August 2000, for unlawfully carrying a concealed  weapon i n his automobi le. Included in the civilian conviction the appl icant was also found gui lty of criminal trespassi ng by positioning himself and his vehicle upon a private busi ness property after hou rs of operation. In a l etter from the appl icant, dated 18 J anuary 2006, he apologized for his actions and admitted that he "acted very immatu re and made a n um ber of mistakes," which he pledges wou ld not be repeated "if [he] could do it over again," The Board noted that the applicant had performed adm irably during two separate deployments to SW Asia. A performance reported, dated 11 May 2000, cited the applicant for his "superior job knowledge" and "superb performance" in resolving "dozens of incidents" that threatened the security of his deployed operating location. During a review of the appl icant's record, the Board noted that the notification  memorandum  sent to h im did not include additional derogatory information that was detai led in the legal review sent to his commander; rendering the applicant unaware of and, thus, deprived of the opportunity to fu l ly respond to a l l factors considered in his discharge. Jn l ight of the fai lure of the notification memorandum to inform the applicant what evidence would be utilized in determining whether he should be separated and the characterization of his discharge, the Board concluded that a clear impropriety existed and that the fai l ure to comply with the respondent's due process was not a harmless error. While the Board does not condone the applicant's actions, under the facts of this particular case there was a substantial doubt that the same outcome would have occurred without the error. Therefore, the Board granted rel ief for an upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

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 discret ion of the  discharge  authority. However, the Board finds that the appl icant was not provided fu l l admin istrative due process in the execution of his discharge.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board concl udes 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