AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAl\fE OFSERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRSTMIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

x	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD REVIEW

N'\ME orGOIJNSE.L AND OR ORGANll.ATK>N

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANll.ATIONOFCOUNSEL

MEMBER  SIITING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER	DENY

X*+

X*+

ISSUES

A92 .21 A9201 A94D5

INDEXNUMBER

A67.10

PLICATION  FOR REVIEWOF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTI FICATION
4   BRIEFOFPERSONNELFILE COUNSEL'SRELEASE    TOTHEBOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITSSUBMITTED ATTIMEOF PERSONAL   APPEARANCE

X*+

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

26 Jun 2013

FD-2011-00570

Case heard  inWashington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. Names and voteswill be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

+ CHANGE RE CODE

RETARIAL

SAFIMRBR 550CSTREETWEST,SUITE40 RANDOLPH AFB,TX78150-4742

SECRETAR\' OFlHEAIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD 1535COMMAND DR, EE WING,JRD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, M020762-7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2011-00570	

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 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 request for the upgrade of the discharge, to change the reason and authority for discharge, and to change the reenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE:   Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  She states the misconduct took place over a two month period and does not accurately reflect her 25 months of service.  Additionally, the applicant stated that the underlying basis for her Article 15 and early return from deployment was because she reported that her supervisor was sexually harassing her to(b) (6)	.  The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, two Letters of Reprimand, and one Letter of Counseling.  Her misconduct included failed to go to duty on time on several occasions between 22 December 2003 and 2 January 2004, failed to obey orders from two officers on at least six separate occasions, with intent to deceive made a false state to an officer (2x), failed to comply with official duty hours (2x), and misuse of her government travel card.
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 applicant's duty performance.  Furthermore, the applicant provided the Board  with a letter from the now retired (b) (6)	which stated he recalled a discord between her and her supervisor.  However, she was sent home early based on her inexperience in the contracting career field and immaturity in the deployed environment. The Board was sympathetic to the issues the applicant experienced, however concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, attending college, and contributing to her community.  However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized her term of service.

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