AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
I l\.l A. 1'.1117 AL"' c."17n'7'1F r • •'"""'   ·---- ..   -··	.E INITIAL)	GRADE	!
AlC
TYPE GEN	x	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
CQ!JNSll:L, .	NAMF: OF COUNSF:L ANO OR ORGANIZATION	AOORf.SS ANO OR ORGANl7ATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x
;· . _ .t;i!;;'.j.'	•.·>.VQ'.1,'EW31JE	,fi:''..':f'. _·
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
·--·-·--- -
x x x
x
x
ISSUES	A94.06	INDEX NUMBER	A67.IO	,>;;¥:;':10/';	·,	;::V»l"1 ll 'f Q1,AAJP';;., . .
1	ORDFR APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATI ON FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LElTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PFRSONNFL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL FXHIRITS SURMITrFD AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDIN<i OF PERSONAL APPEARANCF

HEARING OATE	CASE NUMll!o:R

14 Feb 2006	FD-2005-00328
;.(\j\)'Pr"Tf:fl.l_Sl!VE AND Tl!E llUARO'S l)l',fSIO!'f T,l)'.4AI: ./\RE Dll!(:USSED .ON TIIE ATIACHED AIR FORCE msaJAl\llllitul'\:'1!#.\,\l.l.¥>1i pb(;lst,19\oNAhE
"'          '	"'   ',,,..,	•	"    ,  •         •   ,• ' • ""	'"    ' ' ,.     '	• ••       <     '· •         <     <    .,....,            ' •    .   <          , , '	.'',,   '

Case heard at Washi ngton, D.C.

Advise applica nt of the decision of the Board.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at t he applica nt's request.

....-· ,,.. ···· ....---·
-=--	-	 	
L:ll'JI..    t.'"l-1n>C'    ...,.r.   nr.F"'r.nn.1,•n	-······	I -,,..,_, 4'T1'i.>t: .....L. ua..on DDC'iF;TOJ;NT

.  ,.,  •	.. < ' ·;r -.. / \/•·Lt/.\4!)% o;   . ,;<:	"tfq:M-	'\1'.' ':};:;: .k .. ).'/ 4 •

,· ,, r· ·: 1·&r;:::zr}'.:' ·s: :•.:' '. : 1saU()6

,.,,.. <>1

Hl:

.	- ' .   . ..... " •'M'ji.	. ..

.      '"'   ·   b < <;:>">> >    <        »	<	;-	/  ,  • ,.   ••     '
FROM:

SAF/MRBR	SECRF.TARY Of THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCJL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WFST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING. JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFB, TX   78150-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR !<'ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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

CASE NlJMllER

FD-2005-00328

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel ,  at And rews AFB, MD, on 14 Feb 2006.

The followi ng additional exhibits were submitted at the heari ng:

Exhibit #5: Character reference letters dated 23 Jan 06 and 1 Feb 06

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriet y that woul d justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the  record  and  evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's characterization of discharge inequitable.

ISSUE: Applicant received a general discharge for misconduct - minor disciplinary infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and the DRB concu rred. Although the records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, four Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, four Records of Individ ual Counsel ing, four Records of Verbal Counseling, and two
Memora ndums for Record, the ORB noted that the majorit y of these were for tardiness and financial
irresponsibility, and the vast majorit y of them occurred after the birth of her child. Testimon y revealed that after t he applicant's child was born, she was forced to move out of the dormitory into an off-base apartment 20-30 minu tes from the base as there was no base housing available. Since applicant had no privately owned vehicle, her main mode of transportation became expensive commercial taxis. The ORB was concerned that
the appl icant was now a single parent living off base with l imited resources and multiple obligations and there was no apparent effort on applicant's chain of command to assist her; rather, it appeared they were loading up to effect her separation.  The applicant contended that discrimination was practiced by her supervisors and, although there was no documentary evidence to support her claim, the DRB noted that over half of her documented misconduct occurred during a two month period between her filing a compl aint with the Social Actions office and her discharge.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the proced u ral 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 qual ity of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable u nder the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief