NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
: NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
TYPE
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE AFSN/SSAN
Xx RECORD REVIEW
ABDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
a
Ta
a / :
ISSUES INDEX NUMBER
A01.13
A92.35
A94.05
A94.07
GEN OTHER DENY
xX
xX
xX
xX
x
1 JORDER APPOINTING THLE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
HTEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
29 Jun 2010
FD-2009-00102
Case heard in Washington, D.C.
application to the AFBCMR.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’s request.
TO: “
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFR, TX 78150-4742
Pr
Se
Hebe. "OPP DER TSR peau pags aaa
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL.
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00
(EF-V2)
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
Previous
CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2009-00102
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
and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. The Board finds that neither the evidence of
record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change
of discharge.
ISSUES:
Issue 1. Applicant contends there was inadequate evidence to support the basis for his discharge. Applicant
was discharged at his own request in lieu of proceeding with his court-martial IAW Chapter 4 of AFI 36-
3208. At his court-martial he faced charges of marijuana use and engaging in improper sexual contact with a
15 year old female. Applicant presently contends that, at the time he engaged in the alleged sexual contact,
he did not know the female was under the age of 16. However, evidence found in the case file demonstrates
that the Applicant initially learned the victim was 15 years old when an acquaintance introduced them and
stated that LM was “15 and gay.” In addition, when interviewed by OSI, the Applicant initially denied
having any sexual contact with the victim, explaining that she was “too young” and “only 14 or 15 years
old.” Further, Applicant’s confession to marijuana use was corroborated by at least one other eye witness.
The Applicant’s contention of inadequate evidence to support a discharge in lieu of court-martial is
unfounded.
Issue 2. Applicant contends that he should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes he made early on in his
career, and which were not repeated. The DRB recognized the applicant was 23 years of age at the time he
engaged in the alleged misconduct; he was 27 years of age when the discharge took place. There is no
evidence he was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older
than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force’s standards of conduct.
The DRB also recognized the fact that the applicant had, as claimed, served an additional three years in the
Air Force following his commission of the misconduct charged in his court-martial, without repeating the
same offenses. However, these years were not without incident. Specifically, just months prior to his
discharge, the Applicant assaulted a fellow Airman with a ten inch hunting knife. The inference that the
Applicant’s service continued unblemished after his commission of the charged offenses is misplaced. The
DRB concluded the applicant’s misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his time in the Air Force.
Issue 3. Applicant contends that an UOTHC discharge in lieu of court-martial, under the circumstances
described above, was too harsh. The DRB opined that there was adequate evidence against the accused to
watrant a court-martial and that Applicant had, himself, requested issuance of an UOTHC discharge in lieu
of proceeding to trial where his innocence (or guilt) could be established by a panel of his peers. The Board
determined the applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military
members and that the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he
made in his Air Force career. In sum, the Board concluded that the discharge characterization was
appropriate.
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.
In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for
upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
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 | CY2010 | FD-2008-00524
: s , DATE: YLZ010 : TO: _ FROM: ae SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2008-00524 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge to...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00183
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN x RECORD REVIEW ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY x Xx x x xX ISSUES A0LA3 INDEX NUMBER cc RXHIBETS, BME : A92,21 1 |ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD A94,55 2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3_|LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING...
AF | DRB | CY2014 | FD-2014-00102
GENERAL:TheapplicantappealsforupgradeofdischargetohonorableTheapplicantwasofferedapersonal appearancebeforetheDischargeReviewBoard(DRB)butdeclinedandrequeststhatthereviewbecompletedbasedontheavailableservicerecord.Theattachedbriefcontainsavailablepertinentdataontheapplicantandthefactorsleadingtothedischarge.FINDING:TheBoarddeniestheupgradeofthedischarge.ISSUE: Applicant received aGeneraldischargeforMisconduct: ConductPrejudicial toGoodOrderand...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00568
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. However, the day after charges were dismissed, the...
AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2011-00285_13
AIRFORCEDISCHARGEREVIEWBOARDHEARINGRECORDNAMEOF SERVICEMEMBER (LAST,FIRSfMIDDLE L'IITIAL)GRADE AFSN/SSANPERSONALAPPEARANCE X RECORDREVIEW. ADDRESSANO ORORGANIZATIONOFCOUNSELA94.0SMEMBERSITTING INDEXNUMBER A67.10 IORDERAPPOINTINGTHEBOARD2 APPLICATIONFORREVIEWOFDISCHARGE3 LETTEROFNOTfflCATION4BRIEFOFPERSONNELFILECOUNSEL'SRELEASETOTHEBOARDADDITIONALEXHIBITSSUBMITTEDATTIMEOFPERSONALAPPEARANCETAPERECORDINGOF PERSONALAPPEARANCEHEARINGHEARINGDATE CASE NUM.BER...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00177
FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge and change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied. Issue 2, Applicant contends the Board should take into account his post-service activities. However, the DRB opined that there was no relationship between the applicant’s illness and his misconduct and concluded the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2010-00365
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN TYPE BCD PERSONAL APPEARANCE x RECORD REVIEW NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL MEMBER SIFTING UOTHC | OTHER DENY x Xx x Xx Xx : J ISSUES A92.01 INDEX NUMBER A68.00 s st ee ae aS 1_|ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2_| APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3_|LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE...
AF | DRB | CY2011 | FD-2009-00576
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record. FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2009-00172
COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001 (EF-V2) CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2009-00172 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, three Letters of Reprimand and a Letter of Counseling for misconduct.