AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME 01<'SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, Fl& T MIDDLE INITIAi,)

Al<'SN/SSAN

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

AMERICAN LEGION

X* X* X* X*
x

INDEX NUMBER	,,\

HEARING DATE
23 APR 03

AOJ.46

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0418
•	
1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S REIEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDrrtONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.
Advise applicant or the decision or the Board.

*Change the Reason and Authority to Secretarial Authority.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3IID IU>OR
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 NUMBER

FD2002-0418	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for a change of the Reason for discharge.
licant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, Mr 
mmorthe American Legion, at Andrews AFB, MD on April 23, 2003.
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5:  Applicant's contentions
Exhibit 6:  AF Form 7248, Performance Feedback, undated
Exhibit 7: Memorandum from--answer to 377 SVS question, 10 Jul 01 Exhibit 8: Memo from record of verbal counseling, 13 Jul 01
Exhibit 9:  Memo for 377 SVS/CC, Abandoned Vehicles in Auto Hobby Shop Storage Lot, 17 Jul 01 Exhibit 10: Memo from 377 MDOS/SGOHF, Family Maltreatment Case Management Team Minutes,
13 Jul 01
Exhibit! 1: AF Form 1587, Military Equal Opportunity Complaint Summary, 27 Jul 01 Exhibit  12:  Memo for 377 ABW/ME, explanation of allegations, MEO complaint, 30 Jul 01 Exhibit  13:  377 ABW/JA Suspense Reports (3), 8 Aug 01, 15 Aug 01, 27 Nov 01
Exhibit  14:  Memo from 377 ABW/JA, Letter of Counseling, 9 Aug 01; applicant's reply, 10 Aug 01
Exhibit  15: Summary of Interview, 14 Aug 01; Supplement to Interview, 19 Aug 01
Exhibit 16: Memo from 377 ABW/JA, Response to applicant's Response to LOC dated 9 Aug 01 (exhibit 14), 27 Aug 01; applicant's reply, 17 Sep 01
Exhibit 17: Memo from 1 a	L U ,._.Incidents, 12 Oct 01
Exhibit 18: Memo from 377 ABW/JA, Letter of Admonishment,  16 Oct 01
Exhibit  19:  Letter from 377 ABW/JG, response to applicant's 19 Sep 01 complaint to IG, 16 Oct 01 Exhibit 20:  Memo from 377 ABW/CC, Notification of Commanding Officer Referral for Mental Health
Evaluation,  18 Oct 01
Exhibit 21:  Applicant's reply to 16 Oct 01 LOA (exhibit 18)
Exhibit 22:  Memo from 377 ABW/JA, Referral Officer Performance Report, 22 Jan 02; with AF Form 707B, Company Grade Officer Performance Report, 2 Jan 02
Exhibit 23: Applicant's reply to 22 Jan 02 memo and 2 Jan 02 OPR (exhibit 22)
Exhibit 24:  Memo from 377 ABW/JA, Letter of Admonishment,  1 Feb 02; applicant's reply, 5 Feb 02 Exhibit 25:  Memo from 377 ABW/CC, Notification of Show Cause Action,  15 Feb 02; with applicant's
Response to Notification of Show Cause Action, 4 Mar 02 Exhibit 26: Four pages from applicant's daily planner, 20 Aug 01 - 2 Sep 01 Exhibit 27: Applicant's resume

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

FINDINGS:  Change of Reason for discharge is granted.  The DRB finds that the evidence substantiates an inequity justifying a change of Reason for the discharge.

ISSUES:  The applicant was discharged with an honorable service characterization from the Air Force for u nsatisfactory performance.  She had two letters of admonishment for failure to go and late for work, one letter of counseling for failure to go, and one referral Officer Performance Report for unsatisfactory
performance.  The applicant complained that she was a victim of racial discrimination and harassment from her commander, and that she experienced retaliation after she exercised her right to make Military Equal	

Opportunity and Inspector General complaints against her commander.  She claimed that the discharge action was too harsh, that her chain of command conspired to illegally eliminate her from the service, and that the Air Force Personnel Board cooperated in that scheme.

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.

The DRB found no evidence to substantiate racial discrimination by the applicant's commander or any member of the Air Force.  The applicant provided no evidence of discrimination except that she considered bias the only possible reason for her commander's perceived hostility.  While there may have been a personality conflict between the applicant and her commander, there was evidence to show this resulted from the commander's dissatisfaction with the applicant's job performance and attitude.  Nor could the DRB find any evidence to corroborate the applicant's claim of a conspiracy among the chain of command or that the Personnel Board cooperated in any such conspiracy.

The DRB also noted that the applicant did not request a resignation in lieu of further administrative action, an option available to her as mentioned in her wing commander's  15 Feb 02 memorandum, Notification of Show Cause Action.  In addition, the DRB opined the Personnel Board acted appropriately in disapproving the applicant's earlier request for voluntary separation in that there was insufficient justification for approval under the Miscellaneous Separation criteria.

The DRB did find, however, that the evidence suggests at least the perception of reprisal against the applicant for making Military Equal Opportunity and Inspector General complaints.  While the complaints themselves were determined to not warrant an investigation, the timing of subsequent administrative actions and the timing of a referral for a mental health evaluation were suspect and could not be ignored.
Furthermore, the DRB opined the level of administrative actions taken was beyond the severity of the minor infractions, and thus not appropriate as among the bases for discharge; hence, the discharge was too harsh.

In view of the foregoing findings the board concludes that the applicant's Reason for discharge is more accurately reflected as Secretarial Authority.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief