AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

x

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.0l A07.20

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

x x x
x

1 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
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

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

09 Dec 2010	FD-2009-00095

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision 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.

TO:

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

FROM:

',,<'!0-

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

AFBQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)	Previous

:AIR FORCE.DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2009-00095	

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), w·	s
AFB on 09 Dec 2010.  The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf relative.	The  following  additional  exhibits  were  submitted  at  th
Contentions  consisting  of  a statement  from  the  applicant's  counsel, Legion, and a statement from the applicant, herself.  Exhibit #6:  Five c

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  change  of  reason  and  authority  for discharge, and change of reenlistment  code.   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 discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and 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 contentions, her letters of recommendation, an official list of her authorized awards and decorations, and other documents contained in the case file.  However, the DRB also found that the records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, five Letters of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling for misconduct all within 15 months of arriving on station.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board opined that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force career.  It concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reason which was the basis for this case and that the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2. Applicant contends that she should not be penalized indefinitely for a mistake she made when young and submits that her post-discharge conduct warrants an upgrade of her discharge. She also opines that she believes she deserves a second chance despite her discrepancies so that she may serve her country in the Unites States Army. The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place. However, there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was the same age as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. Likewise, the DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was found in the course of the hearing. The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

CONCLUSION: 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 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 discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment:  Examiner's Brief