11 1in•••••.••11u a	........

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER tLAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGAN17ATION

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSJ:L

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN   UOTIIC        OTHER	DENY
X* X* X*

ISSUES

A92.22

INDEX NIJMBER

X*
x
A61.00

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

23 Sep 2003

FD-2003-00241

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

•

* Change reason and authority to Secretarial Authority.  SPD: JFF Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

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

SECRETARY OF TilE Affi FOR'E PERSONNEL COUNCIL Am FORCE DISCHARGE REVlEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FUJOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-1tltlZ

AFHQ  FORM  0-2077, JAN  00	(EFV2)	Previous edition will be used

Attachment:  Examiner's Brief

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003 00241	
GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

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:    The Board grants the requested relief.
The Board finds that neither the  evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify upgrade of the discharge. However, after a thorough review of the record, the Board finds that the applicant's character of discharge and reason for discharge are inequitable.

Issues. The applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions {general) discharge for discreditable involvement with military or civil authority. Member had a Letter of Reprimand related to a civilian conviction for driving under the influence, and an Article 15 for violating a lawful order by driving on base while her driving privileges were revoked. These offenses occurred while assigned to Altus AFB, OK. The record also disclosed that while assigned to Royal Air Force  Station  Lakenheath,  United Kingdom, member was diagnosed an alcohol abuser and entered into residential rehabilitation treatment, which she subsequently failed. (She was re-entered into rehab after her alcohol offense at Altus AFB.) Additionally, while in the UK in 1989, her security clearance was revoked and she was permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program due to her statements voicing disagreement with the existence and use of nuclear weapons; she was a munitions line delivery crewmember  at  the  time. Although an administrative discharge was contemplated, it was not executed, and member was allowed to cross train. Member now attributes her negative behavior to marital struggles. Applicant also notes she has matured since leaving the military.   She is married with a son and steady employment, and went to college to improve herself.  Applicant infers her misbehavior was a direct result of her inability to properly handle her marital problems, and was not indicative of her true character then or now. The passage of time has ameliorated the problems, and applicant now believes she is worthy of an honorable discharge based on her post-service accomplishments. While the Board did not condone  applicant's misconduct, which was a departure from conduct expected of all military members, they also noted applicant was not  involved in serious criminal misconduct, and there were extenuating circumstances that may have predicated some of the incidents. But for these offenses, applicant was a good airman and citizen, and has continued to be a good citizen since her discharge. The Board felt it would have been more equitable to allow her a period of probation and rehabilitation, or to have completed her period of service with her service characterized as honorable. Therefore, the Board found sufficient mitigation at this time to render the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant too h;;trsh. · The Board found the evidence submitted by applicant sufficient to warrant an Honorable discharge, and to change the reason and authority for the 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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board also 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.