AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

.

AFSN/SSAN

·'    ----------------------­'

AB	·---------------'

'

'

TYPE GEN

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING	HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

--t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · ----------------+------1----------4----+------+	I

''

ISSUES

A92.17 A92.21 A93.33 A94.05
A94.ll

A67. 10

INDEX NUMBER

x x

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

5	ADDITIONA L EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

x  +*
+*

+*
x +*
x +*

HEARING  DATE	CASE NUMBER

12 Jul 2007

FD-2007-0002 9

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the A FBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

+ Reason and Authority
* Reenlistment Code

--	·-	---  ·---------	·,		I
''

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ISJS COMMAND  DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7002

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

AIR FORCE DlSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATION ALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2007-00029	

GENERAL:	The applicant  appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable  and to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenl istment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, at Andrews AFB on 12 Jul 2007.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #5 Applicant's Contentions (w/ American Leg ion Counsel's statement attached).

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

FINDINGS:	Upgrade  of  discharge  and  change  of  reason  and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of reenlistment code are 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 discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, that nonjudicial punishment was vacated due to additional miscond uct, that the applicant was issued two Letters of Reprimand and a Record of Individual Counseling, as well as had this information placed within her unfavorable information file and
was placed on the control roster during her short two years of service.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior, even despite the challenges she claimed from having a new supervisor.  Additionally, although the appl icant claims that her command failed to consider or investigate what was reall y happening to her, testimony indicated that the applicant spoke to her commander and numerous NCOs personally about her concerns, and since she worked directly and in close proximi ty to the commander as part of his commander's support staff, it was difficult to credit the applicant's assertion that a personality conflict with her direct supervisor was the cause of her troubles.  The record shows the commander, the staff judge advocate, and the separation authority all considered probation and rehabilitation, but all felt the applicant was not a suitable candidate, based on her acts of misconduct.  The majority of the Board Members concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant d eparture from conduct expected of al l military members.  The characteri zation 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 and other accomplishments.  They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance and off-duty activities.  The majority Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pl eased to sec that the applicant was doing well in her life and has held a good job for a number of years.  However, no inequity or i mpropriety in her discharge was found in the course of the hearing.  The majority Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant during her term of service was appropriately characterized.	

Issue 4. The appl icant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement that she understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympatheti c to
the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 5.  Applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake she made when young.  The DRB recognized the applicant was over 21 years of age when the d ischarge took place.
However, there is insufficient evidence to show that she was so immature or could n't tell right from wrnng. The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force standards of conduct.  The ORB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the miscond uct.

Issue 6.  Applicant requests that the reason (minor disciplinary infractions) for her discharge be changed to "Secretarial Authority."  Applicant concludes that she should not be labeled with "minor disciplinary infractions."  The DRB opined that the reason for discharge was minor d isciplinary infractions whi ch is in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, Misconduct , and includes individuals who fail "to comply with nonpunitive regulations or minor offenses under the UCM.T.  Infractions of this type result, as a rule in informal (reduced to writing) or formal counseling, letters of reprimand, or Article 15, nonjudicial punishments."  This definition precisely describes the applicant's pattern of misconduct.  A discharge under Secretarial Authority would only be appropriate when discharge would serve the best interests of the Air Force and a discharge for cause is not warranted.  The Board concluded the reason for the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive req uirements of the discharge regul ation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided lull administrative due process.

In view of the foregoi ng 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