AIR FORCE  DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

N.UIE OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITLU)

!  AFSNISSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDOR ORGA..N]ZATION
so
: X

X   RECORD REVIEW     	
ADDRESS A.."- ID OR QJlGA'."ilZATI-0N-0F COllNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x x

INDEX S1.ii\1RER
A93.Ul, AUl.47, A94.05	A67.50

I	ORDER APPOINTING TilE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVlEw oF DlSCH,\RGE	1

HEARING  DATE
17 JUL 03

CASE  L"MRER
FD2003-00082

3	LETTER OF NOTIFlCATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TilE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHJBlTS SUBMD1'ED AT TJ1E O:F PERSOI'>AL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PFRSONAI. APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

,  Advise applicant of the deeision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/withou t counsel, and the right to
I submit an application  to the AFBCMR.

SAFIM!BR
550 C STREET WEST, SUrTE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3'" 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 NUiDER

FD2003-00082	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the 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 pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge, change of reason and authority, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

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

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. She now concedes she made stupid mistakes and attributes her maladaptive behavior to being very young. She had two Records of Individual Counseling, two Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15. She also had an Unfavorable Information File and an Enlisted Performance Report rated an overall referral "1." Her misconduct included three instances of making a false statement, failure to obey orders in three instances, three incidents of failure to go, dereliction of duty, and 2 days absence without leave. Additionally, member had been arrested by local authorities as an identity theft suspect, and spent 7 days in the county jail. Applicant's medical records disclose she was admitted to the intensive care ward of a local hospital after a suicidal gesture, an overdose of acetaminophen resulting in hepatoxity. Furthermore she was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and "cluster C traits." At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf. The Board noted member had eleven incidents in a 12-month period, thus clearl y establishing a pattern of misconduct. The Board further noted that member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards when her misconduct occurred, and she knew right from wrong. Contrary to applicant's claim that her unit failed to offer rehabilitative measures, the record shows she was counseled numerous times in an effort to help her correct her deficiencies and had multiple opportunities to improve her behavior. She tailed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

While the Board commends applicant on her desire to return to military service, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge bas on her reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

Applicant cited her desire to receive her G.L Bill education benefits as justification for an upgrade. The Board noted that applicant signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on June 14, 1999) that she understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits on applicant, 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.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.
Attachment: Examiner's Brief