NAME O F  SERVJCE MEMBER (LAST,  FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

-- - 

I 

- - - - - - --  - - 

?(i?'  NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION -- 

I  x 

TYPE 

, 

I 

MEMBER SITTING 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

I  AFSNISSAN 

I 
I 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ4TION OF COUNSEL 

%"z- 

HON 

I 

q 9 SVOF  O-P THE'BOA~:; y ; - ~ i d  gi,;~~; i1 

* ** 

1  UOTHC 

I  OTHER  I  DENY 

GEN 

1 

ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 
APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 

1 
2 
3  1  L E T ~ E R  OF NOTIFICATION 
4  1  BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
I  COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
I 
I  ADDITIONAL EXHLBITS SUBMIlTED AT TIME OF 
1
1
 PERSONAL APPEARANCE 
I 

1  TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE 

I 

I 

HEARUVG DATE 
24 Oct 2003 

1  CASENUMBER 

I FDZ003-00029 
I 

I 

.WPLICANl"S J S S ~ ~ T l @ B ? A I L D ' S  DECISIONAL 

ARE MSeUSSEDON THE ATTACHED AIRPORCE DlSCHARGE R W l E W  BOARD D&CISIONAL RAllONALE 

1 

Case heard at Albany, New York. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. 

TO: 

I 

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

FROM: 

1

-

 

(EF-V2) 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 

Previous edition will be used 

1 
1 
I 

I 

1 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

. 

CASE NLIMBER 

FD2003-00029 

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change his reenlistment 
code. 

The  applicant  appeared  before  the  Board  without  counsel  at  Albany,  New  York,  on  24  Oct  03.  The 
following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit 5:  Applicant's  contentions. 
Exhibit 6:  Undated character letter from , 

Hyatt Regency Buffalo, NY 

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge to under honorable conditions (general) is granted. 

The Board finds that although upgrade of the characterization of the discharge to honorable is not warranted 
by  the  evidence, upgrade  to  a  general  discharge  is  warranted.  Upgrade  of  the  reenlistment  code  is  not 
warranted. 

ISSUES: 

The  applicant  contends  it  was  unfair  to  discharge  him  under  other  than  honorable  conditions (UOTHC) 
because he was a model airman during his first 26 months of service.  He believes he was misrepresented by 
his military defense counsel and was never given any other option than to request discharge in lieu of court- 
martial.  He  stated  that he  was  immature at  the time of the misconduct and  that  he  has  learned  from his 
mistakes.  The applicant was separated UOTHC in lieu of court-martial on charges of conspiracy to commit 
wronghl  appropriation  of  a  government  vehicle  and  wrongful  appropriation  of  a  government  vehicle 
following a unit Christmas party.  The respondent and another airman wrongfully took a government vehicle 
and damaged the mirror and smoke stack on the vehicle.  The respondent was intoxicated at the time of the 
offense.  Although  the  Board  believes  the  respondent  was  culpable  in  his  actions,  it  did  not 
believe  that  his  misconduct  warranted discharge  UOTHC.  The  Board  agreed  with  the  applicant  that  the 
characterization was too harsh and that the case did not warrant trial by court-martial.  The Board did not, 
however,  conclude that  the  applicant's  counsel  misrepresented him.  There  was  nothing  in  the record  to 
support  that  assertion.  The  Board  also  concluded  that  the  applicant's  misconduct  did  not  warrant  an 
honorable discharge or a change in reenlistment code. 

CONCLUSIONS:  The  Discharge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the 
procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation,  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  further  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of 
applicant's  service is more accurately reflected by an under honorable conditions (general).  The applicant's 
characterization  of  discharge  should  be  changed  to  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  under  the 
provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

* 

ANDREWS AFB,  MD - (Former A1C)  (HGH A1C) 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

.- 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a UOTH Disch fr USAF 14 Apr 95 UP AFR 39-10, 
Chapter 4 (Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial).  Appeals for General Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 20 Sep 73.  Enlmt Age: 18 6/12.  Disch Age: 21 6/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 

AFQT: N/A.  A-83,  E-31,  G-53,  M-30. PAFSC: 3P031 -  Security Apprentice. 
DAS: 21 Jan 94. 

b.  Prior Sv:  (1) AFRes 26 Mar 92 -  2 Aug 92 (4 months 7 days) (Inactive). 

3 .  S.ERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB  3 Aug 92 for 4 yrs. Svd: 2 Yrs 8 Mo 12 Das, all AMS. 
b.  Grade Status:  A1C -  3 Dec 93 
AMN -  3 Feb 93 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art15's:  None. 

I 

~ 

e.  Additional: LOR, 21 DEC 94 -  Assaulting another military member. 
f .  CM:  None. 
g.  Record of SV: 3 Aug 92 -  01 Jun 94  Kunsan AB  5  (Initial) 

2 Jun 94 -  26 Feb 95  Kunsan AB  3  (CRO) 

(Discharged from Griffis AFB) 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR, AFOUA, NDSM, AFOSSTR W/1  DEV, AFAM. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (3) Yrs  (0) Mos  (8) Das 

TAMS:  (2) Yrs  (8) Mos  (12) Das 

4 .   BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD F'm  293) dtd 25 Dec 02. 

(Change Discharge to General) 

Issue 1: ,My discharge seems unfair do to the fact that the first 26 months 
of service I was a model airmen (sic).  My last two months of service is when I 
was disciplined for my actions.  The first incident occured  (sic) off base when 
another airmen(sic) assaulted a fellow airmen (sic) with a cane.  I unfortunatly 
(sic) struck the airmen (sic) in retailiation for striking my flight member. 

Issue 2:  Second incident occured  (sic) three weeks later, I was attending a 
flight Christmas party and my going away party.  When the party ended a bunch of 
us decided to continue drinking at the NCO Club.  When our flight driver decided 
to use a duece and a half to go to the NCO Club, I accompanied him in the 
passenger seat, while he drove.  While we went to the NCO Club the driving 
airmen (sic) damaged the smoke stack and damaged the side mirror.  This last 
incident was the cause the Base Commander decided to pursue a Court Martial 
hearing.  My appointed attorney advised me to plea bargain.  He thought my best 
course of action was to be discharged in lieu of Court Martial Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions.  Looking back I feel I was misrepresented.  Reflecting 
back I understand my actions were detremental (sic) to our mission at hand, 
which was securing an Air Force installation.  I hope you could find it in your 
heart to grant me a second chance.  Possibly to help secure our freedoms and 
combat what stands in our way. 
I am also three credits shy of earning my Bachelor's Degree from - - - - - - - -  
College. 

ATCH 
1. Real Estate License. 
2. College Degree. 

AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS SEVENTH (PACAF) 

APO AP 96278-2047 

22 Feb 95 

MEMORANDUM FOR CC 

in Lieu of  Court-Martial, A 1 

presently facing court-martial charges for conspiracy to commit 
ation of Art 81, UCMJ, and wrongful appropriation in violation of 

Art 121, UCMJ.  Specifically, he allegedly agreed with another airman to take a govemment 
vehicle belonging to the 8th Security Police Squadron, and then took the vehicle and drove it 
around Kunsan AB, Korea.  The other airman eventually lost control of the vehicle and it collided 
with a tree on the base golf course.  On 10 Feb 95, the commander for the 8th Fighter Wing 
preferred charges against the accused.  You  later referred the charges to a special court-martial on 
17 Feb 95.  The accused has now requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under 
Chapter 4 of AFR  39-10.  The 8 FWICC recommends approval.  I concur.  The file is legally 
sufficient. 

2.  Procedural History.  On  10 Feb 95, the 8 FWICC preferred the charges and specifications 
against the accused.  On  16 Feb 95, the accused requested discharge in lieu of ttia.1 by 
court-martial.  On 18 Feb 95, the 8 FW/CC forwarded the request to you recommending 
approval.  As the General Court Martial Convening Authority, you  take final action on the case. 

3.  Discussion. 

a.  The accused is alleged to have conspired to take a government vehicle with another airman. 

The two then took the vehicle and went driving around Kunsan Air Base.  The vehicle collided 
with a tree and was damaged.  Although a debt against the accused has not yet been determined, 
he has tendered a money order to cover at least half the repairs to the vehicle.  He has also agreed 
to testify against the other airman.  His testimony will enable the 8 FWICC to prefer an additional 
charge of drunk driving against the other airman.  The allegations against the accused are 
sufficiently serious to warrant trial by court-martial, and conviction on all charges is very likely. 
The question is whether the interests of the government and the victims with respect to the 
allegations can be adequately vindicated only in a trial by court-martial.  I believe a discharge in 
lieu of court-martial in this case will adequately serve the interests of  the govemment. The 
accused has now  made restitution for his responsibility in the damage to the govemment vehicle. 
The other airman, it seems, is the more culpable of the two, and the accused's promised testimony 
will help build the government's case against him.  Therefore, under these circumstances, the 

,icerests  of the Air Force will be  served by the accused's  timely separation, and it is not necessary 
to subject him to a court-martial conviction. 

b.  The 8 FW/CC recommends approval of  the discharge because the accused has offered 

restitution, and he was the less culpable of the two individuals.  The 8 FW/CC feels the nature of 
the accused's offenses warrant an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 

4.  Options.  As the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, you may approve the request or 
deny it.  If  you approve the request, then you must also: 

a.  Determine the type of discharge the accused will receive; and 

b.  Give the reason for characterization of service, but only if: 

(1) You direct a discharge more favomble than UOTHC; or 

(2) You direct a discharge less favorable than that recommended by the commander. 

5.  RECOMMENDATION:  That you approve the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- 
martial, and that you discharge the accused with an under other than honorable conditions 
discharge. 

- - - --  -  --  -- .-- 

Staff Judge Advocate