..

I •.,•.....

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H.EA.RI,NG RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE \\',!EMB,ER, (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE
TYPE	x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AFSN/SSAN
•111m1u
RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COVNSEL AND OR ORGANIZ\TION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANl2ATlON OF COVNSEL

 --	- -	- -

A92.2:2, M4.8'

INDEX  NUMJlER

A67.90

HON	GEN
x x* x*

UOTIIC	OTHER

DENY

x
x

llEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEFOF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TlME OF ·

20 Oct 2003

FD99-00504-A

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at the Air Reserve Personnel Center. Denver, CO

*Change reason and authority to Secretarial Authority. Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 781504742

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE Pl!llSONNEL COlll'ICIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING, 311.D FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-"°1

(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD99-00S04-A	

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

The applicant appeared before the Board without counsel at the Air Reserve Personnel Center; Denver, Colorado, on 20 Oct 03. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 5: Applicant's contentions.
Exhibit 6: Macon State College Dean's List Certificate Exhibit 7: Missouri State College Transcript
Exhibit 8: Character References (3)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is granted.
The Board finds that although there appears to be no inequity or impropriety in the processing and execution of the member's involuntary separation, compassion for the applicant and the minor nature of the offenses, warrant upgrade of the characterization.

ISSUES:

1.	There was a lack of supervision in a problematic squadron ·in which many members were being involuntarily separated at the time of her separation. The applicant contended that her squadron had numerous individuals who were being separated involuntarily from the Air Force for misconduct including her immediate supervisor. Because of this, she had no proper supervision. The Board found no evidence, other than the applicant's testimony to support this assertion. Rather, it appears that the applicant was given several rehabilitative actions in an attempt by her squadron to help her change her behavior.

2.	She received no formal feedback of any negative performance to support the commander's issuance of the administrative actions including several LORs. The Board found that she received feedback in the form of the letters of reprimand and the ponjudicial punishment action under Article 15, UCMJ. The Board concluded that there was no requirement to warn the applicant of her misconduct prior to issuing the letters of reprimand or the nonjudicial punishment.

3.	Her average conduct and  efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were above average to excellent; she received awards and decorations; her record of performance showed she was a generally good service member; and she had a prior honorable discharge. The Board agreed that her performance reports indicated that the applicant was a stellar performer especially before her assignment to Kadena. The Board observed, however, that her performance reports were just one factor to take into consideration when characterizing her service. The Board noted that her prior Honorable Discharge while a factor to consider, had no bearing on characterizing her present enlistment and concurred with the applicant that her prior honorable discharge would qualify her for her GI Bill benefits. The Board recommended that the applicant obtain a copy of the DD Form 214 from her prior enlistment and supply it to the proper authorities.

4.	She had been a good citizen since her discharge. The Board found that the applicant had not engaged in any misconduct since her discharge including involvement with civil authorities. It commended her on her progression in her academic endeavors and her ability to maintain employment even with the challenges of moving via PCS orders with her active duty spouse.	

5.	Her record of Article 15 was based on many offenses, but they were mostly only minor offenses. The Board determined that the respondent's nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, was based on only one incident-the failure to follow a lawful order-but that it was permissible under the law. It observed that she received letters of reprimand for every instance of misconduct beginning with the first instance of misconduct with the exception of the nonjudicial punishment action. The Board was concerned that it appeared the squadron used a "one size fits all" approach to discipline in many respects. The Board noted that several instances of misconduct appeared to be handled with disciplinary responses which were too harsh for the offense.

6.	Her discharge was punishment and was too harsh considering what was happening in her squadron and that the President of the United States in office at the time of her discharge had also engaged in adultery. The Board noted that the discharge was not punishment but rather a quality force shaping tool available to commanders and that the applicant's discharge was based  on several instances of misconduct not just her adulterous affair for which she received a letter of reprimand. The Board did not believe the applicant's reference to the President was relevant in determining the outcome of her discharge review.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was equitable and proper at the time of her separation. However, the Board concluded that based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the discharge and the applicant's post service conduct, her discharge should be upgraded on compassionate grounds. Although the Board found no inequity or impropriety in the administration of her discharge, it concluded that the member's forthright nature in admitting to the misconduct and her subsequent employment in the civilian sector without any difficulties, coupled with the personal nature of her alleged adulterous affair warrants an upgrade to honorable. The Board noted the member's nearly four years of satisfactory service without any disciplinary problems and the fact that the alleged minor misconduct occurred after being PCS'd to a remote location and all occurred in a 6-month period. The Board considered the magnitude of the instances of misconduct and concluded that many of them were minor and that the disciplinary response to them was stronger than necessary. In light of these findings, the Board determined that upgrade of her discharge characterization and change of authority for that discharge was warranted. The Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief