AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	Al'SN/SSAN

AMN		
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW			

x	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL	

X*+

X*+ X*+ X*+

ISSUES

A94.02 A94.06 A94. 12 A94.56

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

X*+

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
1

•	4 BRlEF OF PERSONNEL
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TJME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE R ECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARfNG

llEARING DA TE

14 Jan 2010

CASF NUMllER

FD-2008-00475

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.

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

*RE Code (3K)
+Narrative Reason (Secrtflrifll A nthnritv\

THE AIR FORCE PERSONN>;L COUNCIL REVIEW DOARD
L UIVllYIAl'lJ LJK, t;E WING, .!RD FLOOR
20762-70Ql

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

Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00475	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB on 14 Jan 2010. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf:- (aunt).

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit 5: Applicant's Contentions

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

FINDING: The Board grants the requested relief.

The Board finds the evidence of record does not substantiate an impropriety that would justify a change in the discharge. H.owever, based upon the record and evidence provided by the applicant, the Board finds the applicant's character of discharge and reason and authority for discharge to be inequitable.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because she was falsely accused of being disrespectful and having  a problem with authority. The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) from  her  supervisor's  supervisor		the day prior to her scheduled  date to start maternity leave. The LOR was in reference to her t	al conduct from 14-17 Aug with the Medical Group staff. She received a direct order to not contact the Medical Group staff without one of four members of her Squadron staff present. According to the record and applicants testimony, she was contacted by the Medical Group staff that there was a change in the point of contact that was working her referral for delivery of her child
. On 14 Aug when she contacted		regarding her referral, she was told that missmg rom er ie was the letter which would allow her to travel to Chicago. The applicant had already provided  this information  and became upset  when	told her that her referral would be canceled without this letter, especially since the applicant had bee:n working the referral since May. The applicant stated that she had an appointment the next day ( 15 Aug) with her doctor and could bring the letter following her appointment.  Applicant was unable to make the appointment on the 15th and when she notified
her referral was canceled. When she was able to make her doctor's appointment two days later (17 Aug), she received the travel authorization letter and provided it to	However,	had already contacted the Squadron Commander (on 15 Aug) and complained of applicant's disrespectful, rude, and unprofessiona.l behavir over he phone. . D.uring pplican_t's .test1e admitted that she was extremely upset and crymg, but 1f anythmg, was persistent m quest10nmg --as to why the travel approval was missing and the reason for the cancelation of her referral. After considering the applicant's records and testimony, the Board opined that the LOR was too harsh. The Board grants the upgrade of the characterization of discharge to Honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change	
the reenlistment code.

Issue 2. Applicant contends she was punished for using MEO and the IG and was railroaded into signing UIF documents.  The applicant states when she went to the IG to fill out a complai nt against	she was punished with an Article 1 reduction in grade, 15 days of extra duty, and later an LOR. She states that her MEO and IG complaints were unsubstantiated  due to	having friends working these offices.	

-

The Board determined the punishment received by the applicant was too harsh and the influence of
•	(against the applicant) -on the Squadron Commander and First Sergeant was improper. The Board grants the upgrade of the characterization of discharge to Honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

CONCLU SION: 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 the applicant was provided full admi nistrative due process. However, in view of the foregoing findings, the  Board concludes the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reilected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as Secretarial Authority and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provi sions of Title I 0, USC 1

Attachment: Examiner's Brief