AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS  SIITING

---------------------------------------   '
ISSUES	INDEX NUMllER
A93.09, A71.0I, A92.37	A67.IO

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

HON
x x x x x
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETIER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
03-05-07

CASE NUMllER
FD2002-0530
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea rance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

_ _ _ _ ...._ _ _J_ _ _

_ Sl!.'NA.Ull!E 0.F.JIOABDJ'.RESWEIH _ _ r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

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

SECRETARY OF Tiffi AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0530	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change her reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. She had an Article 15, Letter of Reprimand, and an Air Education and Training Command Form 125A, "Record of Administrative Training Action." Her misconduct included failure to report on time, failure to meet performance standards, and being absent without leave (AWOL) for 20 days. Applicant now contends she was told that upon completion of her Article 15 punishment, she would be allowed to remain in the service. The record reflected member had washed out of her first technical training course to be a Medical Service Apprentice due to difficulty with the skills application portion; she was retained and allowed to begin cross-training into the Vehicle Operator Apprentice Course. While there she decided to leave of her "own free will" with no one but her husband, also an airman, knowing of her plan. In a signed sworn statement, member admitted that her reason for doing so was "unclear" and she possibly had "a problem with authority." She further stated she wanted to return to civilian life. In response to her Article 15, she submitted a letter requesting to be discharged and advising her commander not to waste time sending her to correctional custody because that was "reserved for Airmen willing to give the Air Force a second chance" but would be a waste for her because her mind was made up "to choose another path."  She further stated that she was unhappy with her life, and didn't envision herself being in the Air Force in the future. At the time of the discharge, member waived her right to consult counsel or submit further statements on her behalf. The Board cannot condone member's very serious misconduct and could not find any evidence in the record to substantiate her contentions now. Her conduct was a significant departure from the standards expected of airmen and had a detrimental effect on good order and discipline. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

The applicant cited her desire to return to military service. While the Board commends applicant on this desire, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on her reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

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 upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief