AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DEARING RECORD

X*

X*+

NAME OF SERVICE MEl\IBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAc'll

AMN
RECORD REVIEW
ADDll.ESS AND OR ORGANJ7.ATION OF COUNSEL

X*+

	
ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX NUMllER
A67.10	
		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DJSCHARGE	
		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	

HEARING IIA1'E

14 Apr 2010	CASE NU:>tllER

FD-2008-00568			

Case heard via videoteleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 14 April 2010. Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

* CHANGE RE CODE	

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL

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

SECRETARY OF THI; AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCii.
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND llR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFll, MD 20162·7001

AFHQ  FORM 02077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

·AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00568	

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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 14 Apr 2010. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: his mother,

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Applicant's  Contentions
Exhibit #6-8: Character	letters

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board grants the requested rel ief

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 d ischarge characterization, reason and authority for discharge, and RE code inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant recei ved an Article 15 (failure to go and false official statement) and two Letters of Reprimand (one for indecent acts with another and communicating a threat and one for reckless driving and false official statement). Within a fow days of arriving to his first duty station at Travis AFB, California following tech school, the applicant engaged in consensual oral sex with a female airman. Later, while the female airman's boyfriend was in the room, the applicant k issed the face and neck of the female airman,  who  was not wearing a shirt. After bei ng embarrassed about the situation by her boyfriend telling others what had occurred, the female airman reported that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant. After months of investigation, during which time the applicant  was removed from training  and assigned to the night shift, charges were dismissed against the applicant based on a complete lack of credibility of the female ainnan. However, the day after charges were dismissed, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand for committing an indecent act with another and for communicating a threat to a male airman in a separate incident. The Board found that the applicant's actions did not to the level of committing an indecent act. Additionally, the Board found that the threat incident simply involved two young airman  exchangi ng insulting words, which did not amount to anything.

The applicant admitted to reckless driving and lying to the MDG/CC regarding his identity. He explained that  was scared of getting into more trouble because of the sexual assault investigation.   The morning after charges were dismissed against the applicant, he was late to work because he had been celebrating the night before. He also lied to his supervisors by stating that his cell phone was not charged , when it was properly charged.

The DRB felt that the false allegation of sexual assault against the applicant, occurring so soon after his arrival at his new duty station, created a situation that made it nearly impossible for the applicant to recover, even after it was revealed that the allegations against him were false. While not excusing the two false official statements and reckless driving incidents, the DRB folt that these incidents  alone  would  not ordinari ly result in a discharge.  The DRB disregarded the LOR for indecent acts and communicating a threat	

· ·

as this LOR seemed to be a method of punishing the applicant for the false sexual assault allegation and for a minor·act of two·young airmen behaving in an immature manner toward one another.

CONCLUSION: 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the  overall  quality  of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority and the reenl istment code changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief