f
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVIO:M EMBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

X  PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVIEW

YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL ANO OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS  SITTING	HON	GEN
x x

x x

l>ENY

x

Rf.ARING DATE
1APR 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002v0377

I;IJlITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCH	GE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT Tl	OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAf'E RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPER	HEARING APPLICANTS  SUE AND TUE.BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AR'E DlSClJSSEO ON THE ATTACHED AIR fORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAt. RA1'10N
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Board.

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	{EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNE  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3Ro FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition wil l	used.

		

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISION AL RATIONALE	CASE NUMB.KR

FD2002-00	
77	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for a change to the character of discharge from general to hor The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), at Andrews Air 1
Base, Maryland, on April 1, 2003.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:  Exhibit 5: Applicant's issues; fa
College Transcript (9 pgs); Exhibit 7: Character Letter; Exhibit 8: E-mails of Appreciation (55 pg

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

FINDINGS:  The requested relief is granted.	
rable. t>rce

1ibit 6:

ie	
ISSUE:  The applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because she was not given an appr  priate
opportunity to pass her CDC exams and because it was an unfair characterization of her service.  r    pe applicant had a letter of counseling for financial irresponsibility connected to nearly $1000 of bad   hecks; nonjudicial punishment for theft of approximately $1 12 of merchandise from AAFES; a letter of r  primand of an overdue cell phone bill in the amount of $614; a record of individual counseling for having	r hair out of compliance with regulations; and a letter of admonition for making unauthorized phone cal	using a government authorization code.  She also failed her CDC course first in November and then in Dt:  ember 1998.  When she was discharged, the applicant was within months of completing her first cnlistm  it.  The applicant acknowledged her misconduct and accepted responsibility for her actions.  She presente	m a credible manner and was sincere in the presentation of her case.  In addition, her post service com  1ct, as evidence by the exhibit she submitted at the hearing, has been exemplary.

Although the applicant did demonstrate poor behavior and did not maintain very good duty perfor  riance, the DRB determined that under the circumstances, the applicant's discharge characterization was inequitable.  The most serious incident, the theft from AAFES, could not be condoned and was nc   excused by the DRB.  The DRB observed, however, that discharge action was not taken after that incident  nor was it taken until a year after the last incident of misconduct.  The unmistakable import of this was thi:  but for the applicant's failure to pass her CDC course, she would not have been discharged for the misco   iuct.
Since the misconduct stiH could appropriately be used to characterize her service, it was necessar:  to evaluate the circumstances surrounding her behavior.  The applicant was a first term airmen, sent   verseas, after never having spent any appreciable amount of time outside her home in a small town in Ala1   ma.
Moreover, the misconduct stemmed more from naivete, youth, and inexperience than anything eh   .  This problem was compounded by the unit's apparent failure to provide the applicant with any financii counseling or any other assistance to help her bring her finances under control.  With regard to the  CDC failure, the DRB was disturbed by the unit's failure to provide required counseling and assistance  or
airmen who have trouble with their upgrade training.  The absence of action by the unit and her Sl  :>ervisory chain was obvious.   In addition, there was evidence the applicant was not permitted to perform he   duties on a regular basis as a result of the paternalistic action of male civilian contractors and some male m1 tnbers of the military who routinely refused to let her do the work for which she was trained.  In this regarc   it appeared the unit failed to follow procedural requirements and that this failure impacted the cquit   of her separation.  It also appeared to the DRB that under these circumstances, it would have been unfai   for the applicant to bear the burden of a general characterization for the rest of her life when she could hi   e simply left the service honorably in a few months after being denied reenlistment.	

.
CONCLUSIONS:  After a through and complete consideration of the information submitted by t applicant, the applicant's personal testimony, and information contained in the record, the DRB cc  eludes that the discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements of the discl  ltge regulation.

The Board further concludes that given the nature of the situation, the overall quality of applicant'   service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable characterization.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief

...
'