AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE ME.f\llBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

TYPE	x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA TJON

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
•t•lf I
RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

ISSUES	A94.11

MEMBER SITTING

I INDEX NUMBER	A67 .00

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

A94.55 A94.05

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
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

30 Oct 2003

FD-2003-00381

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

I Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

I
I

I

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

SECRETARY OF TJIE 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 NUMBER

FD-2003-00381	
GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (ORB), without counsel at Andrews AFB, MD on October 30, 2003.
1'
The attached brief contains the 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.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, a Letter of Admonishment, and a Record of Individual Counseling for misconduct, most of which related to financial irresponsibility.  Member's club account and deferred payment plan were both delinquent, resulting in wage garnishments.  She was disrespectful to her First Sergeant, a Chief Master Sergeant, who stated in 10 years as a First Sergeant he had never come across anyone with a worse attitude or with as complete a failure to accept responsibility for  their actions.  Member took a 2.5 hour lunch break, and the following day was late to work.  The most  serious of her offenses involved failing to pay her telephone bill and then after her service was disconnected obtaining telephone services by false pretenses twice, and failing again to pay the resultant bills.  Member was sent to financial counseling to assist in managing her financial matters but was evasive and uncooperative.   Member's only Enlisted Performance Report was a referral "2" and noted her immaturity, lack of initiative, and difficulty adapting to the military environment.  Member testified that events in the record didn't occur as represented by the record, and she provided an explanation for each instance.  The Board didn't find applicant's testimony credible and opined that through the unit's 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, and the characterization of discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issues 2 & 3. Applicant felt her supervisor and First Sergeant acted unprofessionally toward her, and that she was not treated fairly during her Article 15 and discharge processing. The record reflects that member had access to and did consult counsel regarding both the Article 15 and the discharge action and was given her full due process. The record thoroughly documents the reasons for the discharge, and applicant's testimony to the contrary was not compelling. Additionally, applicant could not clearly articulate a reason why she felt her chain of command was making an example of her, only that she was unfairly summarily discharged. The Board found these contentions without merit and no basis for 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/change of reason for discharge and change of RE code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief