AI R FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

RECORD REVIEW

Al>DRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEJ,

MEMBERS SITTING

von; m'THE BOARD

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

.  X**

X*

DENY
x

x

x

A94.05 A49.00

HEARING DATE
052203

JNDEX NUMllER
A67.00

CASE NUMBER
F02002-0262

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED T6'tm;BOM!D
J	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER Of NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT  TlME OF
:   PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONAL  APPERANCE HEAR!NG Al'PJ,jgi\NT'S ISStffi'NND 11fl' BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCJ!AR{i!l REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington; D.C.

*Change reason for discharge to "Secretarial Authority"
** Change reason to "Unsatisfactory Performance"

Advise t he applicant of the Board's decision and the right to submit an application to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records.

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFD, TX 781504742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM  0.-2077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NIJM.BER

FD2002-0262	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and for a change of the reason for discharge to unsatisfactory performance.

The applicant appeared, with counsel, before the Board on 22 May 2003.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reason for discharge are denied.

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

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issue 1. Applicant contends that before she was separated from the Air Force, she was told that if she failed her CDC test, she would be given an honorable discharge. On the other hand, she received a "general under honorable conditions discharge'' and the reason stated on her DD Form 214  is "misconduct." The information provided by the applicant and contained in her records was carefully reviewed by the DRB. The misconduct included reporting late to work, reporti ng to work out of uniform, leaving her place of residence while on quarters, failing to promptly return the shop copy of her CDCs to her supervisor, failing to perform her job properly, and wearing unauthorized hair accouterments. The records indicated the applicant received thirteen forms of administrative/rehabilitative action including seven letters of counseling and three letters of reprimand. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior, but apparently chose not to do so. The Board concluded that the misconduct outweighed the otherwise satisfactory performance of this member. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. The applicant asserts that had she passed the CDC test, she would not have been discharged, much less receive a "misconduct discharge." Because the Board had no evidence to consider in order to determine the validity of this claim and could not speculate on its relevance, the Board decided this issue against the respondent.

Issue 3. The applicant disputed the reason for her separation-misconduct-and stated that she deserves an honorable discharge. The applicant stated that at no time during the discharge process was she aware that misconduct was a possible reason for her separation. On the other hand, she asserted that the only reason she would have been separated was for failure of her CDC exams. This argument is without merit. The case file is replete with evidence that the respondent knew from the outset of the administrative discharge process that a reason for her proposed separation was misconduct. The notification letter, served on the respondent by her commander on 9 June 1998, accurately states that misconduct is one of the reasons the commander was initiating the involuntary separation action pursuant to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. In fact, the notification letter annotates misconduct as the "primary reason" for the involuntary administrative discharge action. On 9 June 1998, the respondent signed a memorandum addressed to her commander in which the respondent acknowledged the receipt of the notification letter and her rights pertaining to the discharge action. On 15 June 1998, after receiving an extension to submit matters  in her  own  behalf,  the  respondent  submitted  a four-page  letter  rebutting  the  reason  for the	

separation.

During her personal appearance, the respondent admitted, under oath, that although some of the misconduct was "nit-picky," she did deserve the disciplinary actions taken in response to some of the instances of misconduct. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters of recommendation, and other information contained in the records. They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance. The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for misconduct.

Issue 3. The applicant requests that the reason (misconduct) for her discharge be changed to unsatisfactory performance. The applicant concludes that she should not be labeled with "Misconduct." The ORB opined that the primary reason for discharge, misconduct, was appropriate. Although the respondent was also notified that a reason for the involuntary separation action was unsatisfactory duty performance-resulting from her failure of her CDC exams-it was not the primary reason.  The Board concluded that even though the respondent unsatisfactorily completed her CDCs, her misconduct had a greater impact on her separation.

CONCLUSIONS:   The Board concludes that the discharge was processed in substantial compliance with the applicable regulatory guidance, was 'Within the discretion of the discharge authority, and 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 or change of reason for discharge, and thus the applicant1s discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief