AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

-	lb 1 lll'lllt

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS A". ill OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
X* X*

GEN

UOTIIC	OTHER

DENY

ISSUES	A86.00

INJ>EX NUMBER

A67.10

X* X* X*
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIIE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING OATE	CASE NUMJ!ER

03 Dec 2003	FD-2003-00080

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

*Secretarial Authority

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECIU:TARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE D!SCHARGE REVIEW JlOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD 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 NUMBER

FD-2003-00080	

GENERAL:, The apilicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.
'	'
The ':lPPlicant appeared before th1Discharg ard (DRB) at Randolph AFB, Texas, on 3 December 2003. She was represented by counsel, Mr.	of the Texas Veterans Commission.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS: The Board grants the requested relief
The Board finds that the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity that justifies  a change of discharge characterization.

ISSUE:

Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because it should have been based on an adjustment disorder rather than misconduct.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, three Letters of Counseling, and one Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The records also indicated that at the time of the misconduct, the applicant was experiencing depression, was under thy care of a military clinical psychologist and was taking prescribed medication for her depression.  Her condition did not, however, mandate a
medical evaluation board.  Two clinical psychologists recommended her administrative discharge from active duty following two suicide attempts.  Despite these recommendations,  the applicant was retained on active duty during which time the misconduct accounting_ for the Article 15 occurred.  The DRB opined that the applicant should have been separated earlier in her enlistment and that her service should have been characterized as honorable.  Although the DRB did not excuse the other minor disciplinary infractions committed by the applicant, it did not believe that these infractions amounted to a level to justify a Jess than honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was inequitable.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority. The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed to honorable and Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief