AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

TYPE

GRADE	AFSN/SS N

AB	11111 111

('ouNs.t'L
;   YES	NO
x

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS ANll ORORGANIZA TION OF COIJNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

GEN

VOT£ OF TIIF. BOARD

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x
x

HEARING DATE
13 AUG 03

CASE NUMllF.R
FD2003-0133

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
j     l	ORDER APPOfNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR R EVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITl'ED AT TTME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL Al'PERANCE HEARING
. APPLICANT'S!SSUI! AND THEBOAIID'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AR}; DISCUSSED ON TIIBATTl)CHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE,

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Boa rd, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

DATE: 13AUG 03

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

AFHQ FORM 02077, JAN  00	(EF-V2)

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge Review Board but decl ined 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 is 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 discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because another airman was harassing her and she was having problems with her back. The records indicated the applicant received four Article l 5s, the first one for willfully failing to maintain a constant state of alertness and vigilance as a sentinel.  The second one for sleeping upon her post.  The third one for wrongfully using provoking words towards another airman and for assaulting that airman.  The fourth one was for failing to remain awake at work. Also, the applicant received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for being derelict in the performance of her duties in that she willfully failed to keep her issued firearm with her at all times and for being disorderly.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge
received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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