AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDI,E INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

X  PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER
A 67.90	ORDER AP
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION

HEARING DATE
022703

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0209

4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMJTTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
I 535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 311°FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM Q..2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

G,

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0209	

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

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. The respondent's husband, MSgt	also testified before the DRB. The respondent presented
the following additional exhibits to the DRB for their review: Certificate of Meritorious Service, 4 character letters, a copy of her Air Force Training Records, and copies of the written counselings, reprimands, performance feedbacks, her responses to these actions, and a copy of the letter of notification she received.

FINDINGS: The Board denies the requested relief.

Issue: The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline on November 7, 1996. Before being separated, the respondent's superiors repeatedly counseled, reprimanded and finally imposed nonjudicial punishment before initiating discharge action. The performance report she received was a referral and indicates she was a substandard performer with an overall rating of "2". Review of her records, indicates the applicant performed well for the first 4 months of her service but her service and attitude deteriorated to the point where discharge became necessary. The applicant disobeyed the orders of her superiors, argued with their decisions, and was derelict in the performance of her duties. The applicant had the opportunity to consult with mental health professionals and attended her base's Stress Management Class. Despite these efforts, the applicant was unable to improve her performance. At the hearing, the applicant admitted her performance was substandard and that if given the same opportunity today she would act differently. The DRB noted the applicant was very honest, open, and forthright with the panel. She voluntarily provided the DRB with documents concerning her service that were not present in the file. The DRB was pleased to learn the applicant was doing well in her post·Air Force career. However, no inequity or impropriety in her
discharge was found during the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was well documented in the file and that her service was appropriately characterized.

The Board also reviewed and considered the applicant's entire service record before making a decision.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided with full administrative due process.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief