AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AlC	X l l?llllT

TYPE GEN	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW

)}) $, f{J' NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON
x x x x
x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

ISSUES

AOl.17

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

======t==r,,t     ::::::::1xrn:111P:wmm:1n·Mmm !9lM!t:rtrr::r::tr:
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSON AL APPERANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

08 Dec 2003	FD-2003-00400

Case heard at Randolph AFB, TX.

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

TO:

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJEWBOARD
1S3S 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-2003-00400	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals to upgrade her November 3, 1999, discharge from General to Honorable. The applicant requested to appear before the Board but was unable to appear as requested. The Board considered her request for upgrade on December 8, 2003.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data and factors leading to the applicant's discharge.

FINDINGS:  The applicant's request is APPROVED.

The Board finds that applicant's discharge was negatively impacted by minor misconduct that was not included in her discharge notification letter. Because the unnoticed minor misconduct was considered by the separation authority, the Board found that the applicant's discharge characterization was unfairly prejudiced.

ISSUE:

The applicant contends that her general discharge was inequitable and too harsh because although she failed to complete her career development courses, her actual duty performance was satisfactory. The Board concluded that the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance--failure to progress in military training. The reasons provided in her discharge notification letter, dated 19 October 1999, were that on five separate occasions the applicant failed her career development course (CDC) examinations. The applicant's commander initially recommended a general discharge, but after receiving an oral and written response from the applicant, he amended the discharge notification on 27 October 1999, to recommend an honorable discharge. The Board determined that in the legal review by the Staff Judge Advocate, the separation authority was advised that he should consider that the applicant had "six letters of reprimand and one letter of counseling during her tenure" at Offutt AFB. The Staff Judge Advocate further recommended a general discharge based on the applicant's less than "sterling" record. The Board recognizes that while evidence of such minor misconduct can be considered by the separation authority in determining a member's discharge characterization, the notice of discharge must apprise the member of all allegations and evidence that will be considered by the separation authority. The notice should also provide the member with an opportunity to respond to the allegations and evidence presented to the separation authority. After review of the record, the Board concluded that the applicant was not afforded proper notification of other misconduct, nor was she given the opportunity to adequately respond to the separation authority. The failure to provide proper notice of all matters considered by the separation authority creates an impropriety that justifies upgrading the applicant's discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:	In view of the foregoing findings the board concludes that the applicant's service is more  accurately  reflected  by  an Honorable  discharge.	The  reason  for the  discharge  should  remain
unsatisfactory performance.	The :aoard does not recommend changing the applicant's reentry code.  The applicant's discharge characterizatib•n should be changed to honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC
1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

·-