AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BO   RD HEARING RECORD

r:fAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

SrA

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL APPEARA NCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANlZATION

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC        OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

.·..

ISSUES

A94.06 A93.22 A92.20

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

':11>0'r1?:r1:;:	.1w§ffe:tm: 11J 1\fto)·JqcJ!!i!"*'. 1 .1 •
I	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

15 Jul 2005	FD-2005-00004

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal i pearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

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

I

·..·
. .

TO:

SAFIMRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

·.
. •

: CRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
R FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
j.)S COMMAND  DR, EE WING, .lRD FLOOR
DREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002

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

' '

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISI  lNAL RATIONALE

CASE Nll:\18ER

FD-2005-00004

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the  1ischarge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

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

FINDINGS:	The Board  grants partial  relief.	The disch  ge is upgraded  to Honorable.	The reason  and authority for discharge and the reenlistment code will not b(  changed.

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  n' impropriety  that  would  justify  a  change  of  discharge. provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reaso

that provided by applicant substantiates an owever, based upon the record and  evidence and authority for discharge ineq uitable.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest her discharge; She stat O; that she feels that she is able to contribute her expertise to our military and would like to rejoin. She also states that  she lost  her  civilian job  upon returning from Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The majority bf the applicant's military  records  are missing. From what the Board does have, it indicates the applicant se ved satisfactory for eight (8) years and then hurt her back, as documented in the available medical records then missed her UTAs and was subsequently demoted from SSgt to SrA on 15 Dec 92. The Board ap: auds the applicant for her desire to reenter the military, however, since she is currently 51 years of ag< and only has eight good years for retirement purposes which means she cannot obtain the remaining t elve years of service  for a retirement prior to reaching age 60, her reentry to the military is not possible. "he issue concerning the loss of her civilian job does not fall under the purview of the DRB. At the tim of this occurrence, the applicant should have contacted the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve  ESGR) and they would have helped  her under the Uniform  Services Employment  and Reemployment  Rig  ts Act (USERRA).   The DRB opined that due to the applicant's eight good years served, noting that she si hed up for six years and extended for 36 months in order to deploy to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, that her bverall characterization should be classified as Honorable.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board conclu es that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge egulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full   :lministrative 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 Honor  hie under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief