AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE rNITIAL)

GRA.DE

AFgN/SSAN

TYPE    UO

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANll.ATION OFCOUNSEL

x

-- _ L.-	7.90

HON
x

GEN
x

x x x

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

A94.55

1 ORDER APPOfNTCNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITrONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

Hl!ARJNG DATE	CAS!l NUM8£R

09 Jul 2013

FD-2013-00127

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.

. .. .

,.;r    .) ' .
:. ·.

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

SE:CR£TARY OFTHE AIR FOii.CE PERS-ONNtL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE R£Vl!:W BOARD
15JS COMMAND Dlil, EE WING,JlilD Fl.OOR
ANDREWS AFB. ID 20761-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00127	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 09 Jul 2013.

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

FINDING:  The discharge is upgraded to general.

ISSUE: Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for A Pattern of Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  She believes her misconduct was due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which was the result of an incident that occurred while she was attending technical training.  She further believes that this incident led her to suffer from several other health problems during her military career that contributed to her misconduct.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, five Letters of Reprimand, one Letter of Counseling, and one Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  Her misconduct included failed to have uniform ready for wear,  failed to go to duty on time (2x), with intent to deceive made a false statement to a SNCO and commissioned officer, feigned illness to avoid service on several occasions, failed to pay just debt on three separate occasions, engaged in physical and verbal altercation with another airman, struck another airman repeatedly in back and pulled her hair, unlawfully entered another airman's room, parked in handicapped space, possessed false unauthorized military identification card, used wrongful and provoking words towards a NCO and failed to surrender false military identification card.  The Board was sympathetic to the applicant's medical issues however, after a complete and thorough review of the available records, the evidence
provided by the applicant, and the applicant's testimony the Board could not establish a definitive link between the applicant's misconduct and PTSD or other health problems.  The applicant's misconduct took place over an 18 month period.  A time frame in which the applicant was given ample opportunity to change her negative behavior. The applicant testified that she was not given suitable medical care while in the military.  The applicant's medical records from her time in service were not available to the Board, therefore the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds that her treatment was sufficient for the medical problems she presented to her providers at the time.   The applicant did provide the Board with some post service medical records that indicated she was suffering from PTSD. The documentation listed a diagnosis given to the applicant in 2012 and was supported by a listing of medications the applicant is currently taking. Although the Board did not find that the applicant's medical issues significantly contributed to her misconduct, the Board did find that the misconduct did not rise to the level of a UOTHC service characterization.  The Board grants upgrade of the discharge to General.

Applicant states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance report, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  However, it found the misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

The applicant stated she was told her discharge would automatically be upgraded.  The Board noted the issue was a common miscommunication at the time of discharge.  While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the Board	

can establish that an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.

CONCLUSION: 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 was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General) under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief