AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

I NAr.u: O.F sERvro  MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRAI>F:

X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

AlllllU!:SS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

DENY

x x

ISSUES

A93.23 A92.35 A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

x

I    ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATro:--; 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
i PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORDING OP PERSONAL APPEARANCE I IEARI NG

HFARlNG DATE	(:AS: Nl.IMH:R

05 Ma r 2010	FD-2009-00020
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND U!E BOARD'S DECISIONAL RA TIONAl.E ARE lllStUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RAUONALE:.

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 appl ication to the AFBC.l\.1R.

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

TO:

SAP/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFR TX 781 50-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COllNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVI!i:W BOARD 1535 COMMAND OR, EE WING, 3RD 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-2009-00020	

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

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge  Review Board (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

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

FINDING:  The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1 .	Applicant  contends  that  the discharge  was inequitable  because  it was based  upon  one isolated incident in 30 months of service with no other adverse action.

The applicant was discharged TAW AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, A Pattern of Misconduct: Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order Discipline, with a general discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant received two Article 15s. Her first Art 15 was for violation of Aiticle 134, UCMJ: false swearing and committing indecent acts by k issing other females i n a public place. Her second Article 15 was violation of Art.icle 134, U CMJ: adu ltery and violation of Article 92, UCMJ:  dereliction of duty by allowing a member of the opposite sex to enter her tent. The misconduct occurred in November 2002 while she was deployed to Diego Garcia. Although the period of her misconduct was limited, the Board found that the seriousness of the negati ve aspects of her conduct outweighed the positive contributions she made in the two and a hal f years of her Air f orce career. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant contends impropriety of her discharge because the misconduct was isolated and was a direct result of diagnosed and documented medical condition," which she described as "depression as a result of a sexual assault at my first duty station." While the applicant's file reveals documentation that she sought treatment for depression and was also referred to ADAPT, the medical providers did not deem that her case should meet a medical board (MEB) for disabil ity processing. The Board  also noted that in the applicant's discharge response, she stated that her misconduct was due to her alcohol use. After reviewing all available facts and evidence, the Board determined there was no causal relationship between  the member's medical condition and her misconduct that would cause the Board  to disregard  her misconduct and the resulting discipli nary action.

Issue 3.  The applicant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The ORB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement, DD Form 2366, dated July 2000, i n which  she stated she understood  she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic 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.	

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural aI1.d substantive req'uirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and 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 and determines the d ischarge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief