AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSNiSSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL
YES	NO
x

NAME O' COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

:  ADDRESS ANO OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSJ!:I.

MEMBERS SITTING

VOTE OF TUE BCMRD

GEN	UOTllC

OTHER

DENY

---------------+----+----+------+-----rx---·-'
x
x
x x

A94.53, A93.07, A92.37

HEARING DATE
03-03-07

INDEX NUMBER
A67.30

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0478

tXHllllTS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOT!FICA TION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S  RELEASE
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

APPUCANT'if°fSfoE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATIAC! !ED AIR

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
HARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

REMARKS

Case heard at Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appea ra nce with/without cou nsel, and the right to subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

TO:	FROM:
SJ\F/M!BR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AI R FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOAR D
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense, and received a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Member received an Article 15 for stealing a 40 MM, M- 203 High Explosive round, and for unlawfully striking his wife on divers occasions between 1 Dec 2000 and 6 March 2002, a 15-month period. As a result he was disqualified from further service in the Security Forces career field. In his reply to the Article 15, member admitted his guilt and apologized for his actions. He was also directed to undergo evaluation at the Life Skills Center for partner relationship problems, and was enrolled in anger management classes. At the time of the discharge member consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. Although member only had this one Article 15, the misconduct it documented was extreme]y serious, and sufficient to warrant administrative separation. Member was essentially the same age as other airmen who complete their enlistments without disciplinary infractions when his misconduct occurred, and there was no evidence he did not know right from wrong. He also failed to show how his marital and personal problems were unique or different from those of other similarly situated airmen. Therefore, the Board found the record supports the characterization of service received.

Apphcant cited his desire to receive his G.I. Bill education benefits as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits 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