AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NA M  :OF SERVICE MEMBl:R (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRAln:	AFSN/SSA N

'

:--------------------------·'	MSGT
'     --------------------------'

----------------.
':----------------''·

TYPE   UOTH	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECOR D REVIEW

I

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL ANll OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

VOTE OF THE BOARD

"'"""

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTl lER	DENY

·.------------------------------------- '	x

'.

'.	'.'
'
.	'	x
'	.

'.

'

.
'	'.
>----:
'
'	'	x
'
.	'.

'

x

.	'..
'	'	x

'
'	'
·------------------------------------ ·
ISSUES	A92.01	INDEX NUMBER	A67.00	l Jl;XHIBITS SllBMtTTtD TO THE BOARD
A92.03	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A94.05	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER Of NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RF.LEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING  llATE	CASE NUMBER

08 Feb 2007	FD-2006-00247
APPUCANT'S lS$lll! AND THll llOARD'S DECISION At RATIONA!. ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIE ATTACHED AIR fORCE DISCHAROE REVIEW BOARD Dllcl$10NAt: RATfONALI!

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/wi thout counsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCM R

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

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

-nATE:  211612001

''•-- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- y;yc -- -	ooRsiiriiNT	v------------------ --- --- -

TO:	FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGf: REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR. k; ; WI NG, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·70M

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(Ef -Y2)	Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00247

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE

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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Although not explicitly stated, applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  He contends that he had charges pending against him by the State of Arizona.  He had not been convicted prior or up to the date of his discharge from the Air Force.   The records indicated the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for Misconduct - Sexual Perversion on November 20, 2000.  Applicant was represented by counsel and exercised his right to an administrative discharge board which convened on October 6, 2000.  The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a UOTHC characterization.  The records also indicated applicant had submitted a retirement application.  The retirement application was considered and disapproved  by the Secretary of the Air Force on November 20, 2000.  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 ofrecommendation 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.

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