NAMI. 01' SICKVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INI'l'lAl.) 

1 YES 

I  No 

1 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

1 

GR4DE 

I R A  

1  AFSNISSAN 

AI1I)HESS  AND OR ORCANIZATION OF COLINSEL 

MEMBER SITTING 

HON 

I 

Gk.N 

I 

IJOTHC 

I 

1 

IIENY 

I 
I 
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD 

I 

I 

1  I  ORDER APPOINTING 'I'll I;  IHOARD 
2 

1  APPLLCA'I'ION FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 

LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 

PERSONAL APPCARANCb. 

I  TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPFARANCE  HE 

I  08 Mar 2007 

I  FD-2006-00389 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

MPLICANTII lSSUB AND THE BQARD% DOFlSIONrU, KAllONAL A R t  DISCUSSED ON THF ATTACMFD AIR  TORST: DISCIIAROE'R~V~EW 

OQARD DeClSlCINAL RATIONALE 

Case heard in Washington, D.C. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal  appearance withlwithout counsel, and the right to submit an 
application to the AFBCMR. 

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

TO: 

I 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WESI', SUI'I'R 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

FROM: 

SECRETARY O I  I'HE AIR  FOHCb: PKHSONNEI. COUNCII 
,AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535 COMMAND  DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANIlHhWS AFH, MI1 20762-7002 

I 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will  be used 

1 

I 

I 

I 
1 

I 

I 
I 

I 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DEClSIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NllMBER 

FD-tO(,6-U(,38() 

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

FINDINGS:  The discharge is upgraded to general. 

The Board  finds that neither the evidence of record  nor that provided  by  applicant substantiates an  inequity 
that  would  justify  a  change  of  discharge.  However,  based  upon  the  record  and  evidence  provided  by 
applicant, the Board finds the applicant's  characterization for discharge improper. 

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the 
applicant received a Civilian Conviction for arson.  After a thorough and complete consideration of the 
information submitted by applicant and contained in the records, the Board concluded there was insufficient 
mitigation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge and that the applicant's submitted issue was without 
merit.  His discharge was proper for the reasons stated at the time.  However, the Board found the 
characterization was too harsh under the circumstances of the case.  The DRB opined that the misconduct of 
the applicant did not directly affect the performance of his military duties as stated in Air Force Instruction 
36-3209, Separation and Retirement  Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, 
Attachment 2, paragraph A2.2.3.  The instruction states that "conduct in the civilian community of a member 
who is not on active duty or active duty training may be used to characterize service as IJnder Other Than 
Honorable Conditions only if the conduct directly afl'ects the performance of military duties."  There was no 
evidence in the case file showing any impact upon the performance of his duties.  The DRB concluded that 
the separation authority's  characterization of the applicant's  service, in this case, was improper. 

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  foregoing  findings,  the  Board  further  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of 
applicant's  service is more accurately reflected by a General discharge. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

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

ANDREWS AFB,  MD 

(Former SRA)  (HGH SRA) 

b..-..-....-..-..-.---------: 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a UOTHC Disch fr USAFR Tinker AFB, OK on 2 
Jun 06 UP AFI 36-3209, para 3.21.3.4 (Misconduct -  Commission of a Serious 
Offense).  Appeals for Honorable Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 18 Aug 79.  Enlmt Age: 20 6/12.  Disch Age: 26 9/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 
A-61,  E-75,  G-78,  M-73. PAFSC: 4N051 -  Medical Service Journeyman. 

AFQT: N/A. 
DAS: 29 Feb 00. 

b.  Prior Sv: None. 

3.  SERVICE UNDER  REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted AFRes as A m  29 Feb 00 for 6 yrs. Svd: 06 Yrs 03 Mo 04 Das, of 

which AMS is 00 Yrs 10 Months 22 Days. 

b.  Grade Status:  SrA -  01 Sep 02 
A1C -  22 Sep 00 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: 19 JUL 05 -  Civilian conviction for arson 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: None. 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFTR 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (06) Yrs  (03) MOS  (04) Das 
TAMS:  (00) Yrs  (10) Mos  (22) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED  FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 18 Sep 06. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable) 

Issue 1:  The felony charge against me has been expunged and I would like to 

change the discharge to general or better, honorable would be a preference. 

ATCH 
1. Court Order. 

18/18/2086 13: 02 

7347714 

507 MPF 

PAGE  10 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE  FVwGc @ 9%4 

AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND 

6 Oct 2005 

MEMORANDUM FOR 507 MSSIDPMSAR 

507 ARWICC 
IN TURN 

FROM:  507 ARW/JA 

7435 Reserve Rd, Ste 6 
Tinker AFB OK 731 458726 

SUBJECT:  Legal Review - Administrative Discharge, SrA: 
507 MDS 

....................................... 
...................................... 

:P 

I. I have reviewed the discharge case file on S ~ A [  
sufficient to support his involuntary discharge under AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.21.4, 
Civilian Conviction. 

------------------- 
------------------ :and find it legally 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
-------- 

2.  On 19 July 2005, S r ~ i  ------, 

:pled no lo contendere in the Cherokee County, Oklahoma 

District Court, case nrlmber CF-2004-23, to the felony offense of third degree arson in 
violation of Title 21, Oklahoma Statutes, Section 1403 (21 O.S.  $1403).  The offense 
occurred on or about I January 2004.  The information filed by the assistant district 
attorney charged that SrA :------------. 
located at 1598 S. Muskogee, Tahlequah, OK, which was not occupied or inhabited at the 
time of the fire.  After he pled no lo contendere, the court placed him on supervised 
probation for a term of five (5) years, ordered him to pay a fine of $250 plus court costs, 
and ordered him to make restitution in the amount of $10,000.  The court further ordered 
that upon his successful completion of the probation, his no lo contendera plea would be 
expunged from his record and the charge would be dismissed with prejudice to any further 
action. 

:willfully and maliciously set fire to a business building 

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 

3.  Under AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.21.4,  members are subject to discharge based on a 
conviction by civil authorities, or action which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, when the 
specific circumstances of the offense warrant discharge and a punitive discharge would be 
authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the UCMJ, or the sentence by 
civilian auth~rities includes confinement for six months or more, without regard to 
suspension or probation.  As stated in paragraph 3.21.4.1 of AFI 36-3209, action 

'AT~oRNEY'S WORK PRODZICT PRIZPAREX) IN DIRECT ON INDIRECT ANTTClPAWON OF LITlGATrON.  NOT FOR RELEASE 
OR TRANSFER OUTSIDE THE AIR RDRCrE W m O W T  THE SPECIFIC APPROVAt OFTHE ORIGINATOR OR HIGHER 
AUTHORITY.  NOT SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY OR RELEASE IJNDER PmL. 93-502 (5 U,S.C. 562),- 

R e c e i v e d   Time O c t ,   10. 

11:48AM 

----  . 

I