.'	 	
NAME 01'' SERVJCE MEMBER (l,AST:-FIRST MJDOL_E_- _·N__T_A_L_)_ ----I=;
,
AIR FORCI•  .DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECORD

X   RECORD REVIEW	.
--r-A-D1>R ES·s .AND OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTIN G

HON	Gt:N

VOTE OF THE BOARD

UffrHC

OTllER

DEl'I
x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER

EXJJIBlTS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD

AOl.13, A92.37

A65.00	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEHER OF NOTJFICATJON
2	
HEARING DATE
03-04-02

CASE NllMDER
FD2002-0337
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL flLE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT  TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'SlSSl'E AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARF. DISCUSSED ON THE ATTA<.'HED AIR !'ORCE DISCTJARGE REVIEW BOARD PEClSJONAL RA110NALE.

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel. I>D F'orm 149 submitted. The case will be forwarded to the AFBCMR for further processing.

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

DATE: ·03.:0403

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

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONA L RATIONALE	CAS: NUMBER

FD2002-0337	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals to change the reason and authority for her 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 pctiinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Ch:mge of discharge reason and authority and reenlistment code are denied.

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

Issues. Applicant received an  honorable discharge  for  making  a homosexual  admission.  The records review disclosed member made a statement  she was homosexual; subsequent commandcr directed inquiry disclosed she had serious romantic relationships with three other females, one of which occurred while she was in military service. Member allegedly bought this partner an engagement ring and intended to consummate the relationship with "marriage."  Additionally,  during the enlistment  under review,  member had an Article 15 for absenting herself from her place of duty over a 3-day period. While away, member was staying with her partner. When recommended for administrative discharge, the member  waived  her right to a board hearing, or to submit statements in her own behalf. Member now contends her statements were false, made for the purpose of being discharged from the service so she could go home to be with her ill mother.  The Board notes that applicant had the opportunity to rebut the presumption  she would  engage in homosexual conduct at the time of her discharge but elected to remain silent on this point. Furthermore, she provided no documented evidence of her mother's illness to substantiate her contentions now, or of anything sufficient to substantiate her homosexual claims were false. The Board could find no inequity, impropriety, or sufficiently mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would warrant an upgrade of the discharge.

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.

Inview of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no lega] or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief