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

AFSN/SSAN

.' -----------------------------.
''------------------------------ '

APPEARANCE

CAPT
x

RECORD REVIEW

------------- ·:

1--

TYPE  GEN
,cotJNS!iit.
YES	No
x

PERSONAL
""'I NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.50 A92.25

'i;:xmsr;r:s SlJBMJTTED TO THE BOARD
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 HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

27 Apr 2007	FD-2006-00454

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

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

FROM:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE OISCHARGE REVI£W BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

TO:

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00454	

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. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two convictions from a general court-martial:  1) for wrongfully and dishonorably engaging in unprofessional conduct by asking a female Airman to expose her breasts to him, and by commenting on her bra size, the size of her nipples, and her state of sexual arousal; and 2) by, on different occasions, knowingly fraternizing with the same female Airman by developing an unprofessional relationship of inappropriate familiarity with her while she was a subordinate under his command.  The convening authority approved a sentence placing the applicant in confinement for two months confinement and giving him a reprimand.  The DRB opined that the applicant's lengthy career in both the US Marine Corps (as an NCO) and in the US Air Force (as an officer), when combined with the repeated, serious, and escalating nature of his offenses against this Airman, gave the applicant sufficient time and warnings to cease his criminal behavior.  The Board concluded the applicant's 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.

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