I	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OJ.' SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, .FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	AFSNfSSAN

TVPF:

YES	NO
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NA:'l! E OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGA'.li!ZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
A". ID OR ORGA"IIZAIION OF COUNSEi,

x x x x x

HEARING DATE
9 OCT 02

CASE NUMB•;ll.
FD2002-0207

Advise ap11Hcant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal a1>pearance with/wothout counsel, and the right to su bmit an a1>plication to the AFBCMR.

SAFfMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB.• TX 781 50-4742

FROM:

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA RD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUJ\-TBER

FD02-0207	

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

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

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify  a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant believes his discharge was unfair because his problems resulted from personal problems with his wife.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated the applicant received three Letters' of Reprimand for physically assaulting his spouse, financial irresponsibility, and violation of the dress standards.  He also received a Letter of Counseling for failure to go.  The Board found no
evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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