MEMBERS SITTING

REMARKS
Case heard at Andrews AFB, MD.

*Changethe Reason for Discharge to:  Secretarial Auhority.  SPD: JFF
+Change the RE Code to: 3B

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.
Advise applicant of the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF1MIB1l
550C STREETWEST I SUITE40
RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

1"\N"YOP''Tm!:Alll FO!tC'El"l'\'ltSOm LCOUHC1L

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
•	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WINO, 311D FLOOR
.AN.l:!REWSAm, MD20'.7'i27Il02
Previous edition will be used.

.

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

							
		X*					
						x	
							x	
A92.21,A94.0S, A94.53		
/			
			3	LETIER OFNOTIFICATIO	
llLUIJNGDAT
0103 22		4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	

I

CASE l'IUMHJ<
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	FD-01-00006
GENERAL : The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason for discharge, and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel at Andrews AFB, :MD on March 22, 2001. The following type of witness also testified on the applicant'sbehalf: -  (her husband).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant 's contentions
Exhibit 6: Complaint for Divorce-September 23, 1993

Exhibit 7:  Complaint for Divorce-June 4, 1993 Exhibit 8: Government Housing Document Exhibit 9: Character Reference
Exhhibit 10: Resume

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of/changes ofreason for discharge and change of RE code are denied.
The Board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequityor
impropriety which wouldjustify a change of discharge. The applicant'sissues are listed in the attached brief.
Issues 1-4 will be addressedjointly.   Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh­
that an LOR from her first enlistment should not have been used in characte1izing her general discharge, that her ROIC, dated 1 December 1993, was for an incident she had not been trained for, that she had personal problems duriog this time of se1vice, and that the Air Force had the resources to help her more than they did. The records indicated the applicant received during her last enlistment an Alticle 15,two Letters of Reprimand (LORs), a Letter of Counseling, and a Record Of Individual Counseling (ROIC) for misconduct. The misconduct included writing bad checks, being disrespectful to her  supe1visor, willful neglect of duty, and dereliction of duty. The DRB considered all of her mitigating circumstances, but opined that through these administrative actions and the assistance of base officials, the applicant had ample opp01tunitis to coITect her situation. The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant depaiture from conduct expected of all milita1y members. The chai·acterization of the dischai·gereceived by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 5 applies to lhe applicant's post-se1vice activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a goodjob. However, no inequity or impropi;iety in her dischargewas suggested or fowid in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characte1izedher
te1m  of  se1vice.	..

Page 2 (Cont'd)

Issue 6.  The      recognized the fact that the applicant had serve six years total service before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her time in the Air Force. The Board noted the applicant was entitled to request an administrative discharge board, but there was no indication in the records that she had been given that opportunity. They determined that this error did not constitute prejudicial error,  there was not substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made.

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 that 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 of reason for discharge and change of RE code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be
changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief