AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
d di	mlfllIIft
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME O,F COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

----- - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - ------ - - - -	----------+-----+-----+----+-----+----!
x
x x x
x

SSUES

A94.ll

INDEX NUMBER

A67. 10

A93.33	I	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 PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

23 Jan 2004	FD-2003-00529

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 .

..--------------------	-----	---,c:) -------	-----------------------------------------   ·.

-	-	-!

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

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 NUMBER

FD-2003-00529	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable  and to change her reenlistment code.

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:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reenlistment code are 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.

Issues.  Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles  15, two Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and two Records of Individual Counseling for misconduct.  Her infractions included dormitory room inspection failures, failure to complete training requirements, insubordination and disrespectful conduct toward her First Sergeant, failure to obey direct orders, and numerous instances of dereliction of duty.  Applicant contends her chain of command "hassled" her and disciplined her unnecessarily because she was unhappy in her career field and wanted to cross-train.  The records review disclosed nothing to substantiate this contention and the Board found it to be without merit.  The Board noted applicant had received three Enlisted Performance Reports, two of which were "referrals."  The reports noted she was a marginal performer, lacked initiative and attention to detail, and failed to meet proficiency in core tasks.  The DRB opined that through the unit's  many administrati ve actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior but  failed to avail herself of these.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.  The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.

Applicant cited her desire to return to military service as justification  for upgrade.  While the Board commends applicant on this desire and is sympathetic to the impact her reenlistment code on the applicant, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that warrants 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 of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief