AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FI RST MIDDLE INITIAL)
: -------------------------------------:
:	'
--------------------------------------- ·	GRADE

SRA	AFSN/SSAN
;---------- ----.
'-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -·	
TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW	
YES	I	No
I	x	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	

MEMBER SITTING			
;.•+ ·	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	

'
'
'
'

''
--:
'		x					
		x					
		x					
		x					
						x	
ISSUES	A94.06
A93.07	INDEX NUMBER	A67.10	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 EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
HEARING  DATE

20 Jun 2006	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00274		
• ; <'.· ....	
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes wiJI be made available to the applicant at the applicant's req uest.

r	
'	4	.
_  (! '!_l...P.,1'.,	!?!l-f'F:.,ll_ _ _ _ _   ":">. _ .,...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J  <!f,1 ! S1/_ l? !J-S_l!_>K'- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I•	'
I	_,:·:·:·:·:.·:·:·,·::·:·.·:·,·:::::::::::M       w,::::::,       '.... ,...	,.,,...	:.. ...	,.. ;J[!.7tii ..... ..	"'	--i{i}.::(:::..)/:::::;·..".: .. ::..:::-· -, "'"• ..•:•. ,: .•·..:.,•r.1.:.•. .11.:.::.1.::.:r.1:.1.::.r.i.l.•·•. . - - "ii.. 1-.··..•....i.. ;•,.,·,1:.1-.J.,..,""o"r"i.·"o."·'"0"6'--"""""""""""""-""""""'"
x mm:::::::::::::::::.,:·:· .	:<i:::::mf 1iimJ ,.,,',	.,	,,.;.iJ.:.:.;;.. ·      =-- =	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ISJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFJI, MD 20762-7002	

1
i

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00274	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB).  The applicant scheduled a personal appearance but failed to attend, so the Board heard the case in her absence.

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was improper because her former spouse is responsible for the actions that took place.  The records indicated the applicant received three Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for
financial irresponsibility, an unspecified domestic disturbance, absence from duty and missed appointments. It was unclear whether the applicant received permission to be absent from duty or to miss these appointments.  A fourth letter counseled the applicant not to request excessive time off.  The records also indicate the respondent married her former spouse during the enlistment in question.  While the information on record does not directly contradict the applicant's claim that her former spouse is responsible for the offenses, the applicant provided no evidence to support her claim.  The Board found no impropriety in the case.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited her desire to move on with her life in a positive light, and the difficulty of finding employment with a general discharge.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact of the discharge on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 3.  On its own initiative, the Board found a general discharge to be too harsh after considering the conduct of the applicant and the responses taken by her chain of command.  One of the LOCs was not disciplinary in nature and documented no misconduct by the applicant.  While the misbehavior of the applicant and her undistinguished duty performance warranted discharge, the Board found an honorable service characterization to be more appropriate.  The Board noted the applicant's chain of command failed to utilize progressively more serious disciplinary responses to the applicant's behavior.  This could have led the applicant to believe her actions were not considered to be serious.  In addition, the LOCs provided scant  detail about the underlying incidents.  The LOCs appeared to have been written after the fact as a way of justifying discharge, rather than being used as a rehabilitative tool.  One of the LOCs notes that the squadron section commander had previously recommended discharge, but was rebuffed.  The LOC regarding a domestic disturbance gave no information about the severity of the disturbance, its impact, or even the applicant's involvement.  The only misconduct on the part of the applicant clearly shown by the record comprised one bad check and one missed dental appointment.  The Board also considered the fact the applicant served for 2 years and 4 months prior to her first infraction.  Despite the broad authority of commanders over administrative discharges, the Board found a general discharge to be too harsh in this case, given the meager record of misconduct.

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.

However,  in view  of the  foregoing  findings,  the  Board  further  concludes  that  the  overall  quality  of the	

applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge.   The applicant's characterization should be changed to honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief