AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
Se AMIN |
RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
TYPE GEN
MEMBER SITTING HON
UOTHC OTHER DENY
[NUR
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
ISSUES
94.06 ] RES NUMBER AG 7.10
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
14 Apr 2010 FD-2008-00568
or
Case heard via videoteleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 14 April 2010.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’s request.
* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIT.
7 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
350 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous
CASE NUMBER
‘; AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00568
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), without counsel, via video
teleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 14 Apr 2010. The following
witness also testified on the applicant’s behalf: his mother, Ms. Annette Neal.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #5: Applicant’s Contentions
Exhibit #6-8: Character reference letters
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDING: The Board grants the requested relief.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by 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 discharge characterization, reason and authority for
discharge, and RE code inequitable.
ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the
applicant received an Article 15 (failure to go and false official statement) and two Letters of Reprimand
(one for indecent acts with another and communicating a threat and one for reckless driving and false official
statement). Within a few days of arriving to his first duty station at Travis AFB, California following tech
school, the applicant engaged in consensual oral sex with a female airman. Later, while the female airman’s
boyfriend was in the room, the applicant kissed the face and neck of the female airman, who was not
wearing a shirt. After being embarrassed about the situation by her boyfriend telling others what had
occurred, the female airman reported that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant. After months of
investigation, during which time the applicant was removed from training and assigned to the night shift,
charges were dismissed against the applicant based on a complete lack of credibility of the female airman.
However, the day after charges were dismissed, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand for
committing an indecent act with another and for communicating a threat to a male airman in a separate
incident. The Board found that the applicant’s actions did not rise to the level of committing an indecent act.
Additionally, the Board found that the threat incident simply involved two young airman exchanging
insulting words, which did not amount to anything.
The applicant admitted to reckless driving and lying to the MDG/CC regarding his identity. He explained
that he was scared of getting into more trouble because of the sexual assault investigation. The morning
after charges were dismissed against the applicant, he was late to work because he had been celebrating the
night before. He also lied to his supervisors by stating that his cell phone was not charged, when it was
properly charged.
The DRB felt that the false allegation of sexual assault against the applicant, occurring so soon after his
arrival at his new duty station, created a situation that made it nearly impossible for the applicant to recover,
even after it was revealed that the allegations against him were false. While not excusing the two false
official statements and reckless driving incidents, the DRB felt that these incidents alone would not
ordinarily result in a discharge. The DRB disregarded the LOR for indecent acts and communicating a threat
as this LOR seemed to be a method of punishing the applicant for the false sexual assault allegation and for a
minor act of two young airmen behaving in an immature manner toward one another.
CONCLUSION: 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process.
However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant’s
service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more
accurately described as Secretarial Authority and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions
of Title 10, USC 1553.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00459
The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, a Letter of Reprimand and a civilian police report for misconduct. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH A1C) 1. Commander, 90th Security Forces Squadron Attachments: 1.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00512
|2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 \LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEIL.’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAI EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 20 May 2010 FD-2008-00512 oat PRICANT: 8 SUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALY ql THB ATTACHED AIR FORCE: Tew. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00061
The records indicated the applicant received seven Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, and two Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct. Direct that Respondent be separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, with or without an offer of probation and rehabilitation; c. Recommend Respondent be separated with an honorable discharge, with or without probation and rehabilitation, and fonvard this case to the general court-martial convening authority (8 W...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00124
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. 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. Otherwise, the discharge action would have been initiated four months prior.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00354
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’s request, * CHANGE RE CODE + CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY SAF/MRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 Case heard via videoteleconference between Andrews AFB, Maryland and Robins AFB, Georgia on 13 April 2010. f SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, FE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2007-00022
The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. 2900-0075 PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION: The law authorizes us to request the information we are asking you to provide on this form (38 U.S.C. d. you were, on 22 Apr 0 1, stopped by the Robins Air Force Security Forces personnel for excess speeding while on base and not having any automobile insurance.
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2003-00100
1 I 1 1 I r AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE 1NITML) MEMBER SITTING GRADE AFSNISSAN I I AIC I Florida Department of Veteran's Affairs 1 ( ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2 ( APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 1 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION I 4 1 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE 1 TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE 1 HEARING DATE 19 Apr 2004 CASE...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00299
1 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME O F SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) MEMBER SITTING + J - + L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . The records indicated the applicant had a Special Court Martial and was found guilty of unlawfully entering the dwelling unit of a female; being drunk and disorderly; and committing an indecent assault upon a female. In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00370
Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2003~-00370 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH A1C) MISSING MEDICAL RECORDS 1. discharge. (Atch 1.3) d. On 1 April 01, you operated a vehicle in a reckless manner and having been restricted to the limits of Edwards AFB, broke restriction, as evidenced by an AF Form 3070 (Article 15) dated 5 Jun 01.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00151
The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct. time in the Air Force, my job performance, and taking into account the many challenges that I had faced during my time of service. She also stressed that if I was discharged, then it should be nothing less than an Honorable discharge based on my overall job performance during the four years that I served.