GRADE

AIC

x•+

x•+

x•+

x

4

COUNSEL"S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
IITIAL)

..

1 HIC HON

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS  AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

JO

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

15 Feb 2005

FD-2004-00443

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

* CHANGE RE CODE
+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHO	TY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY	

TO:
SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM;
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 10762-7002	

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUl\.tBER

FD-2004-00443	

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

The applicant was offered a pers	J?.fore the Discharge Review Board (DRB) and exercised this right. She was represented bttorney at law (her father).

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

FINDINGS: The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that the evidence of record combined with the testimony of the applicant substantiates an inequity that justifies a change of discharge authority and reenlistment code.

ISSUE:

Issue. Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received numerous evaluation forms showing her shortcomings in her career field and demonstrating her unsatisfactory performance. The records also clearly indicate multiple problems with the training she received in an attempt to remedy her poor performance. Due to frequent changes in trainers, the subjective (and differing) nature of the evaluations she received regarding her performance, the difficulty in scheduling her for training due to inadequate numbers of qualified personnel to control air traffic and train at the same time, and the subsequent use of low traffic times to conduct her training, it appears to the board that she was not offered a fair opportunity to improve her performance to bring it up to Air Force standards.
Because of this conclusion, the Board believes it is in the interest of justice to change the reason for her discharge to Secretarial Authority and to change her reenlistment code to allow her to reenlist in the Air Force and serve her country as she desires to do.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Nonetheless, while technically proper, there was a substantial inequity in the Air Force's failure to provide her with a full and fair opportunity to receive the necessary training to allow her to succeed in her job.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553, and that her reenlistment code should be changed to 3K.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief