Y.EKSUNAL AYt'EAKANt:E
NAME OF COUNSltl, AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS A.Nil OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBERS SITTING
x
x
x	+
x
x

ES	INIJEX NUMBER
A94.06,   A93.l0	A67. 10	1	ORDER APPOINTING TUE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR R EVIEW or DISCHARGE
3	LETrER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
02-08-15

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0ll6

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXH!BITS SUBMITTED AT lllv!E OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
+ Remove Misconduct, Minor Displinary Infractions under paragraph 5.46 of AFR 39:::ro-frornthe reason and authority ro-r:
the discharge.

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

SAFiMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150·4742

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REV!F.W BOARD
1535 COMMA1.JD DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-01 16	

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

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: The Board grants partial relief.  The discharge is upgraded to Honorable.  Change of reason and authority for discharge arc denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety that  would justify change of reason or authority for the discharge. However, based on the record and evidence provided by the applicant, the Board find's the applicant's character of discharge is inequitable.

Issues. Applicant received a general discharge for both minor disciplinary infractions and exceedi ng weight standards. Applicant's misconduct included two Letters of Reprimand and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for failing to attend mandatory fitness training on numerous occasions -during the periods 23 August to 13 November 1991 and again  from 2 to 30 December 1992, after directed to do so repeatedly by her Squadron Section Commander. She also had an Article 15 for dress and appearance violations, and a vacation of suspended pu nishment  for writing a non-sufficient fund check The record reflects additional financial irresponsibi lity, but member was apparently not counseled for those infractions. Other documents in the file indicate duty performance problems, but for which she was also not apparently counseled _ The record also reflected member had a diagnosed adjustment disorder and personality disorder. Regarding the weight management failures, member had a Letter of Counseling, four Letters of Repri mand, UIF entries, was placed on the Control Roster, and was administratively demoted due to at least five failures. At the time of the discharge, member had only been on her current base about 6 weeks, and she requested to be discharged based only on her weight management failures and noted she had not had any misconduct for the previous 7 months and had been allowed to PCS. Applicant's issues are essentially the same now. After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by the applicant and contained in the records, the Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge. Specifically, the Board found the characterization of service was too harsh. However, they did not condone member's misconduct and did not find sufficient justification to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

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 foll administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable  discharge.  The  applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553_

Attachment: Examiner's Brief