AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBJ.:R (LAST, FrRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRAm:

AB

RECORD REVIEW

Leonard Calderone

AlllJRJ;;ss ANO OR ORGANIZAT!ON Of COUNSEL

00

X*+ X*+ X*+

ISSUES

A94.06 A94.55

!NllEX NUMBER

A67.30

X*+
x

	
3	LETTER OP NOTIFICATION	
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED A'l TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
E RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

pplication to the AFBCMR. req uest.	

APPLICATION l'OR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DA TE

CASE NUMBER

Case heard in Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an a

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

* CHANGE RE CODE

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

Sf:CR> TARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR fORCF. lllSCllARGE REVIEW BOARll
1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, lRD YLOOR ANDREWS Af'a, MD 20762·700!

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00124	

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), with counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB Texas on 13 Apr 2010.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Narrative Reason and	Code

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the req uested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the 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 character of discharge and reason and authority for discharge to be inequitable.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable, because it was too harsh.  The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for Misconduct:  Commission of a  Serious Offense.  This discharge was based on the applicant being charged with drunken or reckless driving of a vehicle and failure to obey a lawful order and underage drinking.  The Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant's discharge was too harsh and based on an offense that the applicant was found not to have committed.   While the Discharge Review Board in no way condones underage drinking or drunken or reckless driving, based on the evidence presented, the Board determined that there were a number of mitigating factors involved in the incident in question.  On	Feb 07, the member was charged with underage drinking and drunken or reckless driving and being drunk on duty, for which he received an Article 15, Unfavorable Information File and 45 days of extra duty.  While performing the 45 days of extra duty, applicant was accused of being drunk on duty which led to a Summary Court Martial.  He was acquitted of  all charges during his Summary Court Martial and returned to duty.  Member was never returned to his
flight, but instead kept on extra duties for two weeks and told he would be discharged for misconduct on the prior Article 15. The Board contends that the discharge is based on the conduct, which occurred on 23 Feb
07.	received notification of the discharge on 25 Jul 07, over five months later. The Board asseder for the discharge process and discipline in general to be effective, the action should have been initiated promptly and not five months following the misconduct. There was nothing preventing the
in itiation of this action back in Mar 07.  The board felt that if discharge was warranted for this offense the applicant should have been provided with notification of discharge several months ago.  The Board contends that the applicant was discharged for his alleged conduct that formed the basis for the 13 Jul 07 Summary Court Martial, conduct that the Summary Court Officer found that he did not commit.  Otherwjsc, the discharge action would have been initiated four months prior.  The Board felt that the applicant was being punished for an offense that he was found not to have committed.  Also, the Board contends that involuntary administrative discharge should not be a substitute for disciplinary action.

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.	

However, in view of the findings and based upon contributory factors presented, the Board believes that­ relief for the characterization of the discharge should be granted and the applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority with a Reenlistment Code of 3K under the provision of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief