AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE _MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AB
RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTIJC

OTHER

DENY

X+

X+

X+

x

X+

f----------- ----------------------

ISSUES	A94.06

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

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 PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
06 May 2004	FD-2003-00556

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE .PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 CO!'lo'.IMAND D.R, EE WING, lRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL  RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00556	

GENERAL:	The applicant  appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and
. authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with coun
representative from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, at Andrews AFB, MD on 6 May 2004.-
the applicant's father also testified as a witness.	 ' The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 5: Applicant's contentions
Exhibit 6: Packet of Recommendation  Letters Exhibit 7: Employee Performance Evaluation Exhibit 8: Letter to the Board from the applicant Exhibit 9: Flightline Diving Test Results
Exhibit 10: 9 Certificates of Appreciation
Exhibit 11: 3 Training Certificates

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

FINDINGS: The discharge is upgraded to Honorable, and the reason for discharge is changed to Secretarial Authority.  Change ofreenlistment code is denied.

ISSUE:

applicant received two Article l 5s, for failing to refrain from contact with Al c• 7111 and failing to  The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the

request permission from her supervisor to accompany Al C	o the hospital.  She also received 4 Letters of Reprimand for a false official  statement, unauthoriz ence, dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders, failure to go, and conduct unbecoming.  She received one Letter of Counseling for dereliction of
dut  .  The applicant infers her discharge was to harsh because she claims she did not have contact with AlC ut was only entering the gate of the installation while Al C I	f J was conducting her gate
security.  Additionally, she claims she had permission from her crew chief, because her supervisor was not available, to take Al C	1111  o the hospital.  The applicant also provided testimony to illustrate that the
other disciplinary actions were a result of misunderstandings or a break down of communication between the medical representatives for Al C	·   lend her supervisor.  Ms.	so testified that she was the only won:ien in her element and was treated differently in that she was left to learn to correct her mistakes on her own, instead of being provided guidance, like the male members of the element.  She also stated she was
singled out because of her friendship with Al C £. JU who had victimized other members of the squadron
and was seen as a troublemaker.  The Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation and extenuation to substantiate an upgrade to the discharge and a change to the reason and authority.  The Board did not however agree to change the applicant's reenlistment code.

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 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. The applicant's characterization and reason for discharge should be changed to Honorable and Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title I 0, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief