AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AlC

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl:l.'.ATION OF COUNSEL

x
x

ISSUES

A94.ll
A92.21

INDEX NUMBER

x
A67.30
A6l.OO	l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVI EW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTJFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF NAL APPEARANCE

RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE  HEARING

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

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.

TO;

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMA_>;D DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD Z0762·7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

F0-2008-00553	

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

The applicant  appeared  and testified  before the Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB), without  counsel, at Andrews AFB on 08 Dec 2009.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #6: Applicant's Letters to the Discharge Review Board & Board of Corrections for Military Records
Exhibit #7: Military Re-entry Codes
Exhibit #8: State of North Carolina Expungement Petition Exhibit #9: Applicant's Resume
Exhibit #10: Transcripts from UNC Pembroke and CCAF
Exhibit #11: Student Evaluation from Pembroke Social Work Program Exhibit #12: Certificates of Recognition and Achievement (4 certificates)

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

FINDINGS:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.  Change of reason and authority for discharge and change of reenlistment code are also 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.

ISSUES: The applicant contends discharge was inequitable based on the following reasons below.

Issue 1. Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based upon his post service conduct. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and successfully raised two daughters. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

Issue 2. Applicant contends his commander's actions in discharging him were arbitrary and capricious. The applicant stated that while deployed to Germany, he made borderline insubordinate comments to his commander regarding his commander's decision to send him home based on perceived inadequacy of his childcare arrangements. The applicant stated that from that point forward, the commander sought to punish him and discharge him from the Air Force. The DRB concluded that the applicant did not seem to fully appreciate that he had a court-martial conviction for assaulting his ex-wife, a civilian conviction for communicating a threat to his ex-girlfriend, and an Article 15 for violating a no contact order. The DRB concluded that the only reasonable course of action for the applicant's commander, based on the applicant's disciplinary history, was to seek the applicant's discharge. This was especially true as the applicant's conviction was based on domestic violence. The applicant had full opportunity to present his case to a discharge board and the discharge board ultimately concluded the applicant should be discharged with a general service characterization. Based upon the applicant's  history, the DRB felt the applicant was fortunate to get so favorable a discharge characterization. The DRB found no inequity or impropriety in the applicant's commander's actions.	

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 the applicant 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 and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief