-
-	 		 	     AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
iil1•fl•·111 11r1n.,.,	Al C	..j I 1111
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
C0($1SEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
YES	No

x

··

.····.·. VOTE OF THE BOARD; : .·J'.::':	·..:· ...  '
MEMBER    SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x
"----- ._., _ .................,....,_,._	·-·····-·	•  ' .,:_N  -..-:-••..••,.          -·
ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NUMBER	A94.l l	EXHIBlTSSUBMITTED TO THEBO ;,' .
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 EXHJBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARJNG DATE	CASE NUMBER

19 May 2005	FD-2004-00218
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND TIIE B!JARD:SPECISIONAL RATI.ONAL AR£ DISCUSSED ON THE AHACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.•   i

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video-teleconference with St. Augustine, Florida_

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

...-.

./?

 /']
1  / 1

/	/ ")

.   -· · .-.. .-.,..,.  .on.	-   - - /,.I

,	 	

"--..lli)JORSEMENT	DATE: 512012005

'"M•·	U"""'""
TO:	fROM:

···-	·-y·-···	......-	..	- ·

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY OF THE AIR f0RC£ PERSON:'EL COUNC[L
A[R FORCE J)ISCl-JARGE  REVlEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND  OR_  ££ WING,  3RD fLOOR
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	ANOJ<.EWS AFB, MD 20762·7()()2

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-0021 8	

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

The applicant  appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, 1¢l!W id
.........lft l!J-d:ll]lll•t•s at Andrews AFB, Maryland, via video teleconference from
St. Augustine, Florida, on 19 May 2005.

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:

The applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The applicant asserts that her chain of command never gave her a chance to succeed and that because she was "under the microscope,"
each time she did not conform to standards--no matter how minor the nonconformance would be--her actions would be documented in one form or another.  She also alleges that if she had been moved to another squadron during her pregnancy, she would have reported for work on time each day.  Further, she avers that her operations officer didn't understand what she was going through as a single parent of two children because the operations officer was not married and had no children, and that finally she had to put Service
for  Children ahead of Service Before Self.  The records indicated the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, a vacation of nonjudicial punishment, four letters ofreprimand, two letters of counseling, one letter of admonishment and two records of individual counseling over almost a
two-year period from January 1997 to October 1998. Nearly all of the incidents of misconduct dealt with the applicant's inability to arrive at work on time.  The DRB opined that through these administrative and nonjudicial actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board empathized with the applicant that her pregnancy was placing a great deal of stress upon her, but concluded that the stress did not mitigate her failure to uphold her duty to arrive for work on time.  The Board
concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members, and that the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

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	

. •.