coe

ee
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE

ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

AFSN/SSAN

     

AB

 

 

 

X RECORD REVIEW

  

 

 

 

TYPE
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
COUNSEL "| NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES NO
xX

 

 

MEMBERS SITTING

 

 

 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

 

 

HON GEN UVOTHC OTHER DENY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seer

 

 

(COS SXHIBITS SUBMITTED FO THE BOARD. .:.
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

 

 

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

 

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

 

ISSUES INDEX NUMBER

A94.06 A72.00
[HEARINGDATE ‘| CASENUMBER

15 Jul 03 FD2001-0389

 

“REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

 

SIGNATURE OF RECORDER

etn

SAF/MIBR

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

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

del Ge] bo]

BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

 

 

COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

 

 

 

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

 

 

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3°? FLOOR

ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

 

 

Previous edition will be used.
CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD01-0389

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 the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the
discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is approved.

The applicant did not receive an administrative discharge, thus his contention of inequity is not applicable.
The applicant received a Bad Conduct Discharge, a punitive discharge, as part of his sentence resulting
from a Special Court-Martial conviction. Under the provisions of Section 1553, 10 USC, the only basis for
change of a Bad Conduct discharge is clemency. The Applicant presented evidence, which the DRB
opined, did warrant granting clemency.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant’s punitive discharge by
Special Court-Martial was not appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is
sufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge should
be changed to Honorable, Secretarial Authority.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2001-0389

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

(Former AB)

 

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a BCD Disch fr USAF 90/11/26 UP Special
Court Martial Order No.2 (Conviction by Court Martial). Appeals for Honorable

Disch.
2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 70/03/02. Enlmt Age: 18 8/12. Disch Age: 20 8/12. Educ:HS DIPL.
AFQT: N/A. A-87, E-64, G-74, M-58. PAFSC: 62330 - Services Specialist.

DAS: 90/04/20.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 88/11/23 - 89/01/19 (1 month 27 days) (Inactive).

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Enlisted as AB 89/01/20 for 4 yrs. Svd: 01 Yrs 10 Mo 07 Das, of which
AMS is 1 yr 1 month 25 das (excludes 8 months 12 days lost time)

b. Grade Status: AB - 90/03/20 (SPCMOH# 4, 90/03/26)
AMN - 89/07/20

ec, Time Lost: 90/03/14 Thru 90/11/26 (8 months 12 days)

d. Art 15’s: (1) 89/02/03, Lackland AFB, TX - Article 80. You did, on
or about 24 Jan 89, by means of knowingly false
representations that you engaged in homosexual acts prior
to enlistment when in fact you did not engage in such acts,
attempt to procure yourself a separation from the United
States Air Force. Forfeiture of $161.00 per month for one

month. (No appeal) (No mitigation)

e. Additional: none.
f. CM: Special Court Martial No.4 - 90 Mar 26
CHARGE I: Article 121. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 1: Larceny of a wallet of a value of less than
$100.00 on or about 25 Jan 90, the property of Amn -----~-- . Plea;
Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 2: Larceny of $150.00 on or about 26 Jan 90, the
property of Amn --~--- . Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 3: Larceny of $80.00 on or about 27 Jan 90, the
property of Amn -~---- . Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.
FD2001-0389

Sentence: adjudged on 14 Mar 90: Bad Conduct Discharge,
confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 4
months, and reduction to airman basic.

g. Record of SV: none.

(Discharged from Lowry AFB)
h. Awards & Decs: AFTR.

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (01) Yrs (03) Mos (22) Das
TAMS: (01) Yrs (01) Mos (25) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:’ Appin (DD Fm 293) dtd 01/06/21.
(Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: My Bad Conduct Discharge was based solely on a larceny charge of
less then $300.00. I had no other adverse actions prior to this case, no
negative counseling, no records of tardiness or AWOL has been related to me. My
character prior to this incident was reliable, trustworthy and hardworking.
Before the trial, no counselings has been offered to me. Although legal
representation was given to me by the military, the assigned military counsel,
my Chain of Command or my Supervisors failed to advice (sic) me of my options to
seek legal counsel outside the military. I was very young, barely 18 months in
the military, very inexperienced and without proper advice or guidance, I had no
other choice but to trust in the military system.

Issue 2: During my trial, no character references were called upon on my
behalf which I found disturbing. And no evidence of larceny was presented
before my case. The only reason this case existed was due to the fact that I
turned myself into (sic) the authorities and by my own admission of guilt. But
during my trial, none of the above was ever mentioned to attest for my
character.

Issue 3: During my trial, they had mentioned an incident that had occured
(sic) to me while in Basic Training. I considered it to be damaging to my case
and irrelevant for that matter. It was during a different time frame and a
different location. It had nothing to do with my current duty locations or with
what was going on in the present. It should have never been mentioned.

ATCH
1. Character Reference.

01/12/18/ia