AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD REVIEW

x
MEMBER SITTING

ADDRESS A'.ID OR ORCANJZATJON Of COUNSEL

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A94.55 A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30
A67.90	1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OFPERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASETO THEBOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

'.f .:

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

17 Apr 2014

CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00037

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.

TO:

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

SECRETARY  OFTHEAJllFORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR fORCZ OISCHAllC&  REVIEW  IOARD ISl5 COMMAND  DR. E.t Wll'IC,JRD  FLOOR ANDREWS AFS,MJ) 20'161 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2014-00037	
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

ISSUE:	Applicant  received  a  General  discharge  for  Misconduct:  Commission  of  a  Serious  Offense (Misrepresentation) and Pattern of Misconduct and Physical Disqualification.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The records indicated the applicant made false statements to her commander and first sergeant about her medical condition and omitted her use of Prozac, she misused both her Government Travel Card and other government property for unauthorized personal purposes; she engaged in outside employment relating to a "psychic hotline" during period of civilian government employment and inactive training; and was medically disqualified for continued military service by reason of current depression.

Issue 1. Applicant contends that her discharge was improper due to the fact that she should have received a medical retirement or separation due to recurring depression stemming from  a Military  Sexual  Trauma. After a review of the member's record, it does show that member  was found medically disqualified for military duty but it also annotated that member failed to respond to her discharge package after signing for it on 9 March 2002, therefore waiving her rights to her Physical Evaluation  Board (PEB), which gives her rights to request an early reserve retirement due to physical disqualification IAW AFI 36-3212. If member would have elected a PEB, she would have been eligible for a disability separation or a medical retirement. Applicant's case would have been presented to Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council as a Dual Action case.  SAFPC would have reviewed the administrative discharge and the results of the physical evaluation to determine the appropriate method of discharge. Since the case did not involve a disability separation, only a medical disqualification, member's separation authority was AFRC/CV. The Board found that the discharge authority and the type of discharge processing were equitable and appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant contends that the type of discharged she received was inequitable due to it being an isolated incident in ten years of service.  An Honorable discharge is appropriate when a member's service has generally met USAF standards or when service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be in appropriate.  A General discharge is appropriate when significant negative aspects of conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects.  An Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions discharge may be appropriate for acts that constitute a significant departure from what's expected of airmen. The Board concluded that the applicant engaged in such an extensive course of misconduct, including lying to her Commander and First Sergeant and using her Government Travel Card to facilitate her physic hotline business; with all of these actions, applicant demonstrated conduct that is a significant departure from the conduct we expect of airmen the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.