AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X  RECORD REVIEW

OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x
x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A93.07, A92.37, a93.ll	A67.10

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING  DATE
8 JULY 03

CASE NUMBll:ll
FD2002..o54S

ADDITIONAL EXJilBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 311D FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD'.2002-0545	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

_ The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but  declined  to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions, and received a general  (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. During the enlistment under review,  member  received two Articles 15 within 8 months for communicating threats to kill his wife on two separate occasions between 17 September 1994 and 25 May  1995.  During the same enlistment, member also had two Letters of Reprimand, one for financial irresponsibility and the other for dereliction of duty. At the time of the discharge member consulted counsel and exercised his right to have his case heard by an administrative discharge board and submit statements in his own behalf. The discharge board found that  member committed the offenses and they were sufficient to warrant a general discharge. The record reflects that member's marital strife and other misconduct were apparent during previous enlistments also;  he  had received two Articles 15, one in 1986 for disobeying a lawful order not to drive on or off base, the other ip. 1992 for assaulting his wife. Furthermore, there was a detailed history of Family Advocacy Program involvement from March 1993 to May 1995. However, member failed to show how  his  marital  and personal problems were unique or different from those of other similarly situated airmen. And although given many opportunities spanning multiple enlistments, to conform his behavior to that expected of an airman or noncommissioned officer such as himself, he was unwilling or unable to do so. In view of all the available information, the Board found the record supports the characterization of service received.

Applicant cited his difficulties with post-service employment and resultant financial hardships as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the general discharge on applicant, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

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.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief