AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER {LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x

AIC

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITIING

x

ISSUES

A92.35

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

x x x x

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER 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

HF;ARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

lO Jul 2009

FD-2008-00152

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AJR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
15.JS COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00152	

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 was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, on 9 Jul 2009, but failed to appear or notify the board.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

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

ISSUE:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was one isolated incident. The records indicated  the applicant received an Article 15, one Letter of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling. The Article 15 was for a domestic assault incident against his wife. Additionally, the applicant apparently assaulted his  wife a second time in September 2001, as evidenced by the Security Forces report. It appeared that this second assault led to the applicant's discharge. The Board noted that the applicant attended Anger Management counseling following the first domestic assault incident. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions and counseling, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative  behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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, change of reason or authority, or change of RE code; thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief