._

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

.  •r..·11"Inr-	AIC
NAME O:F SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
TYPE    GEN	x	I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
i:, t f:J;n'J,1,N:	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANlZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANILl.TION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No

x	I11111111111 1 1 I

\'Ci: '	'

:fE'OF;TM}f;_ft·O--:·A:·,R-··I.,J·:,.&.i &.. ;; :TU'•' '"''i f :&X:.f':

MEMBER SITTING

·-	" . -·	--.	··--	,--·"-""'--V....c ·-·.·-·
ISSUES	A93.0l	JNDEX NUMBER	A67.10

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x
x x
.	'H·· • "':S' ill    !l;}]P/fiqilt@W	Dif! tf \·\'.: i/ :"

A94.05	I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA T!ON
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

17 May 2005	FD-2004-00396
'· F;;4\\$0i0'.,t,./ . ,:Lt.sl .,t	,. -' t 4Wi\,JWib, "j,f,,f;<J VIS ,,, . :J.L.bh

.'<fi)<'f ··>o ·\..' ,,,".{ ,-li<J':W;(" M.i:k4J<1. m >W>

,· t?".;.fk\.1_.,.	·{  ;·;;J"	.....    ;;L :    . .c  •

:•• j;-   .- .'···,·.\" ·"1' ' :.·,,..-.'tl·<.''0. 0°' :  '\>''''.'.''.<.';":'< <  (."<:  •;'

····AtPLlCANI'   l$i	""·'lll'T!OA:Rn•1p£91s1i;)	AAilONjlSQ	'!'111'tkCHED AlR 1  '1rCHARvmw.OECIIONALM.TIONALi;' '41f ' i 4ii:,'\ \;n "' .··. .

<

Case heard at St. Augustine, Florida and Washington, D.C. via VTC.

i .fJ"I'<-•",';>';'-  '... >·•.     ''·'-

.,.<'.,).j.   •   ,•..    ,>'• ..

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.

..... -	I	/}

- !<'	"

-- ·..------	. -	'·  :··

' :.;f1/;h!11 << :,: > ·.. .. ··:;,.i,<· "	·INDOR:Sf,Ml.' rff   ··	.,. ..,	. _,.,.	.- .i:tv'"" . SWft11·; 1

'\1?:  'E••:51

HM; ,,0 ,:.:::'"'> :·'·· ; ' '

TO;	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REV(EW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH  AFB,  TX 78150-4742	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-2004-00396	
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 was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and elected to exercise this right. The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at St Augustine, Florida and Andrews AFB on 17 May 2005 via VTC. No additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing. The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	Upgrade  of  discharge,  change  of  reason   and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. The applicant cited her desire to join the Air Force Reserves, which could only be accomplished with an upgraded discharge, a chance to finish her enlistment, and an opportunity to regain the good airman status she had once obtained.  The applicant contends that her misconduct was a result of her age and immaturity.  She said that she was now nearly 23 years old and that she had matured immensely since her discharge.  To further support her contention that she matured, the applicant cited her post-service accomplishments with various employers and her progress as a nursing student.  The DRB recognized that the applicant was 18 years old when she entered active duty, had progressed through basic military training without incident, and then committed a series of infractions involving the failure to obey orders while in technical training.  The Board opined the applicant was just as old as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force standards of conduct and that the applicant was given ample opportunity through rehabilitative tools to correct her behavior.  While the DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well in schooling and in employment, the DRB concluded that there was no impropriety or inequity in the applicant's discharge and that her post-service activities and maturation did not warrant additional relief.

Issue 2.  During the course of the hearing, the applicant contended that her record of individual counseling  for fraternization with permanent party members was unfair because the individuals she allegedly fraternized with were fellow students.  The DRB recognized that the applicant may have been unaware of the fraternization rules for this situation yet concluded that the applicant was not prejudiced as the extent of the remaining misconduct clearly supported discharge with a general characterization.

Issue 3. During the hearing, the applicant also testified to inconsistent application of curfew rules by military training leaders noting that some leaders may have not disciplined students for minor violations. The DRB concluded, however, that the degree of the applicant's violations of curfew rules rendered any argument over inconsistency moot.

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, a change in reason and authority for the discharge or change to the applicant's reenlistment code.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief