AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBER SITTING

AlC
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

ISSUES	A92.0l A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

x
x

• 1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
i 2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION	
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE	
	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD	
	ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
	TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING	

x
A67.10

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 applicant at the applicant's request.

X=Change Reason and Authority

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
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2007-00404	

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

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 and change of reason and authority for discharge 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.  Applicant contends she was a top notch airman until her life was turned upside down.  She was raped by her FTAC instructor.  As a result of this trauma, the lengthy investigation and court martial, applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, persistent insomnia and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  As a result of the trauma, applicant
starting abusing alcohol to cope with the trauma. She later received help through ADAPT and completed the intensive outpatient treatment program. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s, two Letters of Counseling, and two Records oflndividual Counseling for misconduct. Her misconduct included assault, underage drinking (2x), wrongfully distributed Ambien, a controlled substance, failure to go (2) and failure to complete mandatory PT. The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force career. 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 applicant1s duty performance.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Ifshe can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifshe should choose to exercise her right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post-service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the munity.

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