l••t	••mz

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

SRA

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

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

GRADE

x

AFSN/SSAN
RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA. TION

x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUJ'\SEL

MEMBER SITTING

·----- ··----- ··-- --··----- ··-----

HON

X*

X* X*

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x
x

ISSUES

A93.IO

INDLX Nl"l\.JBER

A67.30

I	ORDER APPOlNTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATJON 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
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDlNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING    DATE	CASE NUMBER

15 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00418

A clvi''" applicant of the decision of the Board.

* Change the Reason and Authority to Secretarial Authority.

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

SECRETARY or THE AIR FORCE PERSO NEL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIB:W 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 REVIE\V BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00418	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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 applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason and authority for discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for assault, disorderly conduct, and destruction of property. The applicant states that she hit the other member out of self-defense. Although the member waived her Administrative Board in return for a General discharge, the majority of the DRB members thought the applicant served satisfactorily during her 12 years of service.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further 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 under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief