AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

NAL APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDR&SS Al'ID OR ORCANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.53 A93.0l A92.03 AOI.39

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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 Jul 2013	FD-2013-00351

Case heard in 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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

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

SECRETARY OFTHE AIR FORCE P£RSONNRL COUNCIL AIR fORCE DISCHARGE llEVJEW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB,MD 20'/61-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00351	

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 and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.
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: The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct: Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. Applicant contends she was separated from the Air Force on the account of an incident that she did not do and received an attorney who instructed	
her to simply apologize as opposed to disputing her case. She wants her discharge upgraded because it will
help her with finding better employment opportunities. The record indicates the applicant received two Article 15s, a Letter of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included failure to go to duty, disrespectful in language to a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer, failure to obey order, disrespected a Non-Commissioned Officer, and failed fitness assessment (2x). The applicant waived her right to counsel and to submit a statement at the time of discharge. The Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his behavior. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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 reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. They found the seriousness of the willful 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 cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on March 19, 2010) that she understood she must receive an Htmorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Although not specifically stated, applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for mistakes she made when she was young. The DRB recognized the applicant was 21 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct	

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.

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