., ,.,_

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

TYPE	x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

AFSN/SSAN
·td91111 •
RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

---- ·	'	-:-:::·-1-
HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	I	DENY
x

ISSUES

A93.0l A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.IO

x
x x x

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATl ON  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
30 Oct 2003	FD-2003-00180

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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 N ll MBER

FD-2003-00180	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason for discharge and change of reenlistment eligibi lity code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), without counsel, at Andre	ber 30, 2003. The following witnesses also testified on the applicant's behal .

FINDI NGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

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

ISSUES: The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.  The applicant req uests upgrade of her discharge in order to reenter the Armed Services.  The applicant contends her discharge was improper
because of errors in disciplinary documentation, her supervisor illegally obtained her hotel receipts, and incorrect counseling regarding re-classification into alternate career fields.  She believes her discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh, she was immature, and she had a personality conflict with her supervisor whom she contends relentlessly sought to catch her breaking rules.  She further contends that her post service conduct is reflective of maturity and ability to serve.
The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions after 9 months of service.  The member had two Letters of Reprimand, and one Article 15 for repeated underage drinking, breaking curfew, and wrongfully entering hotels in violation of lawful instructions.  The DRB took note of the timing of repeat offenses that occurred within days of formal disciplinary  actions.
Following completion of basic training and entering technical training, the applicant twice requested reclassification into alternate career fields, the latter occasion due to an expressed fear of heights that interfered with completion of training requirements.  After refusal to participate in pole climbing trai ning, the applicant was apparently pending consideration for reclassification into a third career specialty.  During this hiatus in training, the applicant was caught consuming alcohol under legal age, was disciplined, and referred for alcohol abuse evaluation and counseling.  Following the initial incident of misconduct, the applicant testified she was notified she would not be reclassified into a third career field and was to be administratively discharge.  The applicant then engaged in the repeated misconduct noted above leading to administrative discharge due to misconduct rather than due to failure in training (with an honorable discharge).  Review of personnel records found no impropriety in documentation of disciplinary actions
including witness statements obtained by the applicant" s supervisor.  Legal counsel also found no evidence the applicant's supervisor acted illegally in obtaining a hotel receipt.  Although the applicant testified she  was misled about reclassification into the career field of her choice, and her chances of reclassification  into a third career field after she refused to participate in training due to her fear of heights, the Board found no evidence her chain of command acted improperly.  The Board opined her initial misconduct while in a status awaiting consideration for her second reclassification influenced the decision to deny further reclassification and traini ng.  The DRB agrees with the applicant's contention that she was immature, but concluded her supervisor was appropriately performing his duties.  The DRB was impressed with the applicant's honesty, and acceptance ofresponsibility for her behavior.  The applicant's post service accomplishments reflected favorabl y on her current level of maturity and responsibility.  Although the Board felt that she had learned from her experience in the Air Force, that such immature behavior was unlikely to recur, and that she had potential for service, there was no evidence of impropriety or inequity upon which to base an upgrade of her discharge.	

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