A IR FORCE DISC H A RG E R EV IEW BOA R D H EA RING RECORD
NAME OF srnv10; MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

:---------------------------- ·'	AI C

''------------------'

'	'	'	'
'	'------------------''
TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YRS	No
x

MEMBER SITTING
'----------------------------------

VOTE OF THE BOARD
'  """', .	' m ·"·""···     ···--·--=-
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTll ER	DENY

'

'	X*+
'

'

''	x

x

'
'
'

'

''	X*+

'

'' '
----------------------------------

X*+

ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX NUMBER	A67.30	EXHIBITS SUBMlTTED TO THE BOARD
A92.35	I	ORDER APPOINTING TH E l30A RIJ
A93.0l	2	Al'l'LICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A92.0I	3	LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
AOl.39	4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
AOl.45	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TllE HOA R D
ADDITION A I . EXI llHITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECOR DI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 May 2007	FD-2006-00426
APPLICANT'S ISSUl!AND Tlill llOAlUl'S"Dl!ClSlONA,L RATlONAL ARE DlSCUSSllD ON THE ATfACHW AIR FORC IJISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAi. RATIONAi.fl
..
Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made available to the appl icant at the appl icant's req uest.

/.J..

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECR ETAR I A L A UT'f.?RITY
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••     ••••••••••••••   •   •••••••.t'.7.. •••••••••••

INDORSEMENT	DATE: 5/2212007

TO:

I     FROM:

SAF/MR13R

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR  FOHO; P>:RSONNEL  COllNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JR[) FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

I	--

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00426	

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.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with his representative, Mr.
:··-- --- --- --1 of the American Legion, at Andrews AFB on 22 May 2007. The following witness also testified
"oii tiie-applicant's behalf:  Mr. RE (his father).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5:  American Legion Statement with Attachments

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's character of discharge and reason and authority for discharge to be inequitable.

Issue:  Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for Misconduct:  Commission of a Serious Offense.  This discharge was based on the applicant being charged with misdemeanor offenses in civilian criminal court relating to domestic violence.  The Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant's discharge was too harsh based on the isolated and relatively minor incident which formed the
basis for discharge.  While the Discharge Review Board in no way condones domestic violence, based on the evidence presented the Board determined that there were a number of mitigating factors involved in the incident in question.  Both the applicant and his ex-wife were young and got married when the applicant's
ex-wife became pregnant.  Following the birth of the applicant's son, the evidence suggests the applicant's ex-wife experienced some difficulties with motherhood and had mood swings.  The applicant testified that he would frequently be up during the night to feed and care for his newborn son and would get little sleep during the day.  According to the police report of the incident, when the applicant's son was approximately four weeks old, the applicant and his wife engaged in an argument and his wife told the applicant she was leaving the home with their son.  The applicant testified that his wife had been out the previous night due to
a fight she'd had with a neighbor and came home the morning of the incident in an angry and confrontational mood.  He testified that his wife told him she was leaving with the baby for 30 days.  The applicant testified that he attempted to block his wife's access into their son's room as he felt she was in no condition to care for the baby.  He testified that she scratched his arm and he then shoved her in what he believed to be the chest/shoulder area.  He testified that his wife then called a supervisor from work who then called the local
police who arrested the applicant.  Contrary to the information contained in the police report, the applicant testified that at no time did he put his hands around his wife's neck or grab her in a "bear hug."  The applicant had an otherwise good record with no record of disciplinary action prior to this incident and he had received a "5" on his prior performance report.  Based on the applicant's overall service record, his lack of previous disciplinary action, and the relatively minor and mutual nature of the domestic violence incident,  the Discharge Review Board determined that the discharge action was too harsh.  The Board felt that the applicant's treatment was inequitable as other Airmen in this situation are typically allowed to remain in the 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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed to Honorable and Secretarial Authority and his RE Code should be changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief