AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SF:RVJCE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

'

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

AMN

:·- - ----------:
''"------------·'

TYPE   GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW
NAME Of. COliNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRt;ss  AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	Nu
x

VOTE OF THE BOARD
<''   ·---- -....   . .. ··········-····--

MEMBER SITTING

'	'

----------------------------------
'	'
,-:'	''

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x

''	''	x
'	'

f-<

1--o

f-<

'' ''' ''
'' '''
''

x x
·---

'	
'

x
----------------------------------

ISSUES

A93.23 A92.03 A93.33 A94.05 A92.05 A92.17

INDRX NUMRRR	A67.90	EXHIBITS SUJJMJ;f:J,ED TO THE 80.A,BJ) .
ORDER A l'POTNTTNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSON NEL FILE COUNSEL'S R ELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADD!TlONAI , EXI 1181 rs SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDI NG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING OATR	CASE NUMRF:R

I I Jan 2007	FD-2006-00079
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DlSCUSSW ON HIE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHAROll REVlbW BOARD DECISIONAi. RATIONALE

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the A FBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the appl icant at the applicant's req uest.

,11.•C.bJ-":itLIZliUrt-"""	._ ••_. "?'.:. J. . z _,_ .._ ..-'7- _ ••_ ._ ••_ ••_ ••_ ••_ ._ [..,JSJ n1uH1>·-"'"'<l•,.iiJi!<.1G1:'-i1: : _. _ ••- ._ ••_ ••_ ••-,
:	:

'	'

''	''
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H - - - - "1;t[ltRSEMEN:f ·- --- -- ..- --- --- ""()"--- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- -"ilATE; ·1/24/2007

TO:	fl<OM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIH FORC>: PF.RSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMA NO OR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANllREWS AFB, Mil i0762-7002

"---------------------- -------"------------------------------- ..........    ...
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition wi ll be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMHER

FD-2006-00079	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but decl ined 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 provi ded by the appl icant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15's, a Vacation, two Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, a Letter of Admonishment, and a Record of Individual Counseling for miscond uct.  The applicm1t received her first Article 15 for signing an official statement with intent to deceive.  She received a suspended reduction in grade to Airman Basic, 30 days correctional custod y and a reprimand.  She received a Vacation for fai lure to obey a lawful order by making contact with another member (SSgt).  She was reduced in grade to Airman Basic.  Her second Article 15 was for damaging an automobile with a tire iron.  She was disciplined with a
reduction in grade to Airman.  The applicant had additional misconduct and was administratively discipl ined for being disrespectful to an NCO on three separate occasions, failure to go, and being late for duty.  The applicant contends that her mental health conditions contributed to her wrongdoings.  The DRB opined that although the applicant was being treated by mental heal th, it did not impair her ability to know right from wrong or ability to choose the right.  The DRB opined that through these admi n i strative actions, the
applicant had ample opportunities to change her negati ve behavi or.  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.  Applicant states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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: Exmniner's Brief