AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN

RECORD REVIEW

AIJIJRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION 01'" COUNSBL

MEMBER SITTING

!ION

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

A94.05

INDEX Nt:MBER	A67.10

x x
x

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4  BIU.EF OF PERSONN EL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
AL EXHIBITS SUBMJTTED AT TI ME OF L APPEARANCE

ORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DAlT	CASE NllMBER

18 Mar 2010	FD-2008-00474

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the 

of the Board 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 -Upgrade, Reason for Discharge, and Reenlistment  Code

SECRETARY OF THE AIR  FORCE  PERSONN : L COlJNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR
/\NllR RWS Afl , Ml> W7"l-71KIJ

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-004 74	

GENERAL:	The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change the reason and change the reenlistment code.  The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and factors leading to the discharge.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) with counsel at Andrews AFB on 18 Mar 2010.  The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf:                            (Sister).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 6:  American Legion Statement
FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge, change ofreason and change ofreenlistmcnt 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:  Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because she was treated unfairly and too harsh by her command and supervisor while assigned to the 32IS.  She also contends there was an abuse of power by her command and she received no support from leadership in regards to domestic abuse and sexual assault
by her spouse.  The records indicated the applicant received a special court martial for being derelict in the performance of her duties on two occasions, failing to present an AF Form 988 (Leave Request/ Authorization)  signed by her supervisor, attempting to access the controlled campus area with a temporary security access badge assigned to another Air Force member, wrongfully and falsely altering the actual number of days she was to be on quarters, and without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty.  She was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions after serving 3 years and 5 months of her 6 year enlistment   The Discharge Review Board opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board found applicant's contention to be without merit and concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all mi litary members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant found to he appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the proced ural 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.