AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST,FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
(b) (6)

GRADE

TYPE GEN

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

COVNSEL
i---...,..-   -1

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS A:"ID OR ORCANIZATION OF COUNSEL

Y_Es	._No_-4    (b)  (6)
x

(b) (6)

VOTE OF Tiit: OARD

(b) (6)

MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY

X*

x	*
x	*
x	*

ISSUES

A93.22

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

x	•
EXHIBITS SUBMrITED TO TilE BOARD

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
ADDITION AL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

30 Apr 2015	FD-2014-00345
PUCANT'S ISSUB AND 1llEBOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARB DISCUSSEDON 1111! ATTACHBD AIR FOJtCB DISCHAAGE R.EVIBW BOARD DECISIONAL AATIONALB.

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 application to the AFBCMR.

*Narrative  Reason

(b) (6)

i	JNDORSEMENT	DATE: 61912015	'
-,: ;-·---- -----·-· ·----·-..--..----------·-..·-----..-..-.....-.....................FioM;·--·------ -.. - ---·---··---..-----·--·;-:	_	_ _	;
0

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PEJtSONNEL COUNOL
AJR FORCI! DISCltARCE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, F.EWING, JRD 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-2014-00345	

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 grants the requested relief.
ISSUE: The applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service included six Letters of Reprimand and five Letters of Counseling. Her misconduct included dereliction of duty on multiple occasions; failing dorm inspection on multiple occasions; failure to complete assigned tasks in a timely manner; failure to thoroughly study CDCs; failure to meet assigned deadlines, lack of communication and failure to abide by established standards.

The applicant submitted no issues regarding the inequity or impropriety of her discharge. The applicant does submit that she would like her characterization to reflect an Honorable discharge due to her VA rating of 50 percent. The Board reviewed the entire record and found evidence where medical authorities were aware of her medical issues as documented in Service Treatment Records. While the applicant's mental condition did not impair her ability to know right from wrong or ability to choose the right, the Board concluded her condition was related to her behavior to the degree that the Board concluded a General characterization was too harsh in relation to the severity and nature of the offenses and opines that the evidence of the record indicates the applicant's service is more accurately reflected as Honorable.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board  concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant's characterization should be changed to Honorable under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief