AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

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

GRADE

AB

AFSN/SSAN
.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
'.._ _ _ ----- --- ---'·

TYPE  UOTH

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
.---------------------------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OHIER

DENY

x

x

ISSUES

A92.0l A94.05

INDEX  Nl/MllER	A67.90

x
x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

A92.05 A92. 17

2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHA RGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE HOA RD
ADDI l'I  NAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

28 Sep 2006

FD-2006-00052

Case heard in 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 AFBCM R

Names and votes wi ll be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

·---------	a

TO:

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

SICCRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVllCW BOARD
IJ 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-2006-00052	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of general.

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 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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  She admits to making a huge mistake on February 23, 2000 while in the Air Force.  Applicant had seven years of service and has requested an upgrade of discharge based upon her outstanding service as documented by certificates of appreciation, training and Enlisted Performance Reports.  The records indicated the applicant received a Summary Court Martial, an Article 15, and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The Letter of Reprimand was for public intoxication.  The Article 15 was for failure to go to appointed place of duty.  She was disciplined with forfeiture of pay, 14 days restriction to Lackland AFB and 14 days of extra duty.  The Summary Court Martial which led to her discharge was for drunk and disorderly conduct and being disrespectful to a commissioned officer.  The applicant was punished with a reduction in grade to airman basic, forfeiture of pay and confinement for 30 days.  The DRB opined that through these 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.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters ofrecommendation and other accomplishments.   They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

If she can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifshe should choose to exercise her right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community.

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