AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

l lTJAL)	GRA DE

1:C:l;:.i

NAME OF COllNSF.I. AND OR ORGANIZATION

AlC

I	PERsoNAL APPEA_R,'\N_c_:-E-  .. ___·_-- _-----+ x  ---,	RE_c  _R_  n_R_E_v_1_E,

;\1_-_-_...===- -·-·==·-__,

YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORG:\Nl7ATION 01' COUNSEL

•	YOiE  Oli\rJ'.a'lt noAfil>.	•.•. ::::
 	._.:-:::;: _.:_·	··- <LL	·, ?Lf''·.n :1 · : .,,, ::...'·\i'	:..:.iY L..·.,

>.)(/}

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x

------..-------+------1-----+-----+-----r-----
x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.ll A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10 A49.00

Ii·.......	>:.:·1)l:;;gnn11,§;!MI!; oso'.l i11H&.····. · ·
1	ORDER APPOINTING  THE BOAR D
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIM E OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00296

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

..	'"'	IA

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance 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 applicant's request.

SIGN z+v;x=: .-..-

TO:

..	•'

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROMo

SECRETARY 01' THE AIR l'ORCE rERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR l'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD i--LOOR ANDRF-WS Af'B, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJE\V BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00296	

GENERAL:   The applicant  appeals  for upgrade  of discharge  to honorable.	The applicant  was offered  a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDI NGS:  Upgrad e 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.

ISSUES:

1.	Applicant contends discharge was ineq uitabl e because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received seven Letters of Reprimand and one Letter of Counseling for misconduct.  The misconduct included ]ate for work on numerous occasions, multiple infractions for failure to go, making a false statement, failure to follow instructions, and dereliction of duty.  In addition, the applicant had two Career Development Course failures.  The ORB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of at1 military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

2.	The applicant stated she was told her discharge would be easily upgraded.  The ORB noted the issue was common, the result of miscommunication.   While a discharge may be upgraded after six months, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board
denied the appeal.

3.	Applicant stated that she was having flashbacks and nightmares after she returned from a deployment in Iraq.  The Board discussed the applicant's medical history.  The Board noted that she had not presented any of these symptoms to the medical authorities for treatment upon her return from deployment.  The Board concluded this was not a sufficient basis to upgrade her discharge.

4.	The applicant c1aims that when she was in alcohol rehabilitation she was given the prescription drug Trazadon for insomnia.  She contends that this medication would make her drowsy and lethargic thus making her ]ate for work.  The Board discussed that applicant's medical history.  The DRB concluded that the applicant was personally responsible for arriving on time for work and appointments.  The Board concluded this was not a sufficient basis to upgrade her discharge.

5.	The applicant stated that she was raped in her dorm room.  An Office of Special Investigations (OSI) report dated October 5, 2004, stated that the applicant alleged she had been raped sometime in July or August 2004.  The Board reviewed the OSI report and the applicant's medical records.  The Board noted no issue or impropriety was found or discovered that would justify an upgrade to her discharge.

6.	Applicant stated that after she submitted a Congressional about her case her chain of command retaliated by discharging her with a General under honorable conditions discharge.  The Board reviewed and discussed the applicant discharge package and military records.  The DRB could find no evidence that the applicant's chain of command acted improperly or without justifiable reason.	

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concl udes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge reguJ ation 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