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

SRA
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRF.SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEi.

MEMBER SITTING

ISSU1':S

A92.35 A94.05

INl>EX NUMBER

A94.07

x x x
x

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTJFICA TION
4  RRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S REI.BASE TO THE BOARD
ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL A PPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING HATE	CASE NUMBER

25 May 2010	FD-2009-00079

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 appl ication to the AFBCMR,

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

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY m·THE AIR fORCE PERSONNEi. COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISt1iARGE RF.VIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRll l'LOOR
ANDREWS AFB, f\'fD 2MG2. 7001

At<'HQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2009-00079	

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 and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

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 and based on one isolated incident after 30 months of service. The records indicated the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge in lieu of a trial by court martial for the charge of rape. 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.

Issue 3.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

The Board highly recommends that if the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate his issue(s), that he should consider exercising his right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifthe applicant chooses to exercise this right, he should be prepared to provide the DRB with
factual evidence of the inequity/impropriety and any exemplary post-service accomplislunents as well as any contributions to the community.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain w1changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief