AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST,  FIRST MIDDLE  INITIA L)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN
r·--------------------- :	·---------------

''	'

AMN

''.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _''.

----------------------:	'	'
TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW 	
COi   i!::NAME OF COUNSEL  AND OR ORGANl:lATION	AIJDIU,;ss AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

< « <

.Xf 0.F THEiBQARD
m

·'   ----------------------------------
''
'' '

HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x

:'

-''	x

'

''	x

'

x

-:
'
'
-----------------------------------
ISSUES	A93.23	INDEX NUMBER	A69.00	. E:ig,tlBlTS SUBMlED TO TH.E tARD
A93.19	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A92.21	2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW  OF DISCHARGE
3	1.ETTER OF NOT!f!CATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO Tl IE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARA NCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

22 Sep 2006	FD-2006-00023

TAPE RECORDING  OF PERSONA L APPEARA NCE  HE
·--- _.._-

APPLICANT'S ISS!ll! ANO tlil!llOAJU)'S DECISIONAL RATION":T,;   R.l:l.tll$CU$Sl!D ON Tlili ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCMAROE R£Vrnw BARD DECISIONAi. RATTONAtE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

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 appl icant at the appl icant's request.

,-'ilt;!ll HtJlit3i"J>Ji'.c=J11i'.P- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ z ' -_ _ _ _ 71_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ;,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ /._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1_..,t;L 1:: (.lfiJl{WU>..•.RJl!:'.l T,._ z"f_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
'''	''
''	''

'

•- - - - - - - -.. .,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - if,,.?imsS"itM"iNr-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i-----------:;,i.-.;= 912512006
,··.	>,     '<	' : "t.> ; ;,,,,.;,
TO:	I   FROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRt;TARY Ot" rm; AIR t"Oll.Ct; P•:RSONNV.L COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40	1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
RA N DOLPl l A FB, TX 78150-4742	ANDREWS At"B, MD 20762-7002

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00023	

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. FINDINGS:   Upgrade 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.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends her ability to serve was impaired by psychiatric problems which were severe while in the military.  As a result, her depression led to alcohol abuse problems.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct.  The Letter of Reprimand and Article 15 were for underage drinking.  She was disciplined with a reduction in grade to airman, suspended forfeiture of pay, and 30 days extra duty (excess of 15 days was suspended).   The records also indicated the applicant had abused drugs while in the service and was entered into the Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program at Ogden Regional Medical Hospital.  After receiving treatment for almost 60 days, the applicant refused to continue in her treatment and was informed her decision may result in an administrative
discharge.  The DRB 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 all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and continuing her education. However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized her term of service.

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.

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