AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT  
	CASE NUMBER

FD-2021-00664	
					
SUMMARY:  The applicant was discharged on 4 February 2020 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Under Other Than Honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant appealed for an upgrade of his discharge characterization.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference using Zoom on 10 May 2022.  Two witnesses were present to testify on the applicant’s behalf. 

The attached examiner’s brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant’s military service. 

DISCUSSION:  The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge if such changes are warranted.  If applicable, the board can also change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code.  In reviewing discharges, the board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The applicant contended his discharge was unfair due to lack of progressive discipline.  He requested his discharge be upgraded as it was based on one isolated incident and he had no other disciplinary action taken against him in the other 21 months of service in the unit.  

A review of the applicant’s record revealed he had several general court-martial charges brought against him for false official statements and larceny of government funds.  The charges stemmed from his marriage to a Turkish National woman whom he married while on orders in the Republic of Turkey.  After they were married, the applicant’s wife and stepson moved with him back to the CONUS.  The couple divorced a year later and the woman and her child returned to the Turkey.  Over the course of approximately five years the applicant made various representations to the government regarding his marital status and the location of his ex-wife and child.  During this time the applicant also received approximately $50K in unauthorized BAH payments.  
 
The applicant testified that according to Turkish law a divorce in the U.S. is not recognized if the marriage occurred in the Republic of Turkey.  Therefore, he felt that the government of Turkey considered the couple  legally married, and according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the applicant was obligated to provide financial support to the woman and her child for several years.  The applicant continued to represent to the Air Force he was married and continued to receive dependent rate BAH.  A subpoena of the applicant’s bank records revealed he did provide financial support to the woman during the 5 years he received the unauthorized BAH.  The representation that he was not divorced is what formed the basis of the court-martial charges.  

The applicant testified that he requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial on the advice of his Area Defense Counsel and because the trial process was taking too long.  He claimed he provided the dependent rate BAH to his former spouse as he was directed to do.  He further contended that at the time of the misconduct, he was still technically considered married to his spouse, therefore, he thought he was entitled to dependent rate BAH since he was supporting his spouse as required by law.

The witnesses testified to the applicant’s character and claimed he was a trustworthy and reliable Airman and a top performer in the unit.  They asserted the applicant accepted responsibility for his actions, was remorseful for the misconduct, and was a valued member of society that deserved a second chance.  Finally, the witnesses testified, based on the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s marital status, and the fact he repaid the debt, they recommended the applicant be discharged with a General service characterization.
 
The DRB determined, based on testimony and credible witness statements, the applicant did not have intention to knowingly deceive the government.  The DRB concluded, due to the lack of credible evidence to pursue a court-martial, the circumstances surrounding the characterization of the applicant’s discharge were improper.  The DRB also concluded, based on the merits of the evidence presented, the characterization received was also unduly harsh.

FINDING:  The DRB voted unanimously to approve the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge characterization to General.  The DRB also voted unanimously to deny changing the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and denied changing the reenlistment eligibility code to 2C or 3K.

CONCLUSION:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service, service/medical record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was improper/inequitable.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to General, the narrative reason for separation shall remain, and the reentry code shall remain.  The AFDRB results were approved by the board president on 13 May 2022.  If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to:  

Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attn: Discharge Review Board
3351 Celmers Lane
Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602  
Instructions on how to appeal an AFDRB decision can be found at 
https://afrbaportal.azurewebsites.us

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)