AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	- -,--------------------ni

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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 BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

20 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00191

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

----------------	- ---:2.--    -	-,,,t}_..,1. _ _ _ _ _/._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _·	-

SAF/MRBR
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, JRD 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-2004-00191	

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 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 that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES:

Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, two Records of Individual Counseling, a Letter of Admonishment, and had an Unfavorable Information File for misconduct.  His infractions included five instances of failure to go, violating a no contact order, and breaking restriction.  Additionally, member was the subject of an investigation by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; their report chronicled his juvenile arrest for assaulting his sister, his civilian arrest for assaulting his wife, and subsequently, eight other instances over a 14-month period where he was arrested or cited by several different local law enforcement authorities for domestic violence or assault against his then girlfriend.  Member demonstrated a severe pattern of escalating violence and in spite of his many arrests was unable or unwilling to change his criminal behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and applicant's actions can not be excused.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Applicant note's his post-service activities as a possible basis for an upgrade.  Because he received an administrative discharge, not a punitive discharge, the Board must find an inequity or impropriety on which to base an upgrade; clemency is not available as a reason for upgrading an administrative discharge.  The Board noted that the types of offenses applicant was arrested for constitute serious misconduct that is not compatible with Air Force standards.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and is positively involved in his community.  However, these activities do not reflect directly upon his period of service or offer a basis of inequity or impropriety to warrant upgrade of his discharge.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct  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