AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARI NG RECOR D

NA;\ I F: OF SERV I O:M E;\lll[ll (LAST, FI RST M IDDLE INITIA L)

CllAO[

RECORD REVIEW

AFS.'lllSSAN

------'l \\lt:Ot COl '-Sfl \\ OOR OllC\ '17 \f lO\
x

ADDR t \\ \\D OR ORCA'll \ TIO\ OF\Ol SEL

VOTE OF THE BOARD

IEM BER SITTING

110\1

CoFN	llOTUC
x x x

OHIFR	DI::-.y

ISSl E'i

A.92.02

A66.00

x
x
l<:X l ll HI I'S SUll\fffTICO ·ro Tll li BOARD

A00.39

A68.00	I ORDl·R 1\PPOIN I ING nlr BOARD
2	APPi I( \ I I ON I OR Rrv1r\\·OF OISCI IA RGE
3	11 I Il·R OI NOi 111( Al ION BRll· I  OI PL RSONNl:I I'll I:
( Ol l'-SI	RI LI \SI 101l lE BO'\RD
\l>IJl l lOl'- \1 I XlllUll S::.UU\ll l l l·IJ A I  l li\11:01· Pl R'\ON \I  \l'l'EAR \1'CI:
1,\p   RI ("ORDIN(1 OI Pl :Rso:-..AI  APl'I AR •\  cc llL\Rlt-.G

( \\I, \ l \IBER

23  cp 201-'	F0-2012-00234
\PPI K',\J•'.T   ··r A'-0 Tur 00,\RO'S tlCTl"il()'IA! RATIO\:..\(.£ ARE DISCUSSED ON TIIr ATTA{ 11ro AJR fOR("f' OIS('lf \R.(.r R.f\'lf:;01)\RO oc:c·1Mc"NAL RA"t10'-Alf

Case heard in Washi ng.ton, O.C. via VTC with Travis AFB. CA

Advise appl icanl of the decision of the Board and the 1igh1 to submit an applicat ion 10 the A FBCMR.

Names and votes wi ll be made ava i lable lo the applicant al the applican t 's request.

10.

S\r \IROR
550 (' Sl RI I I \\ I. I .sun HO
R.\NtX>I Pll,\I B. IX .,11150-1-4:!

li\DORSE:HE:\T

l'ROI:

1.>XI t;;   9/25/ZO 14

f( ll[ I \R\  ()t llll \IR tOll(lPHbO\\ll (Ol"\(IL
\IR fORC J: Dl!-\11 IRGC Rf.I 11.\\ 80.\RI>
l<J<( 0\1\1\\ 0 DR. t I \\ l\G. lRO FLOOR
\\ORI\\   \t 8. \lll l07tl·711tl

AHIQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONA LE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2012-00234	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general (under honorable conditions).

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB Maryland and Travis A FB California on 23 Sep 2014. The followi ng witnesses also testified on the applicant's behalf: (b) (6)	

The following additiona l exhibits were submitted at the heari ng: Exhi bit #5: Applicant's Contentions

The attached brief  ontai ns available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors lead ing to the discharge.

FINDING:  The Board grants the req uested rel ief and the discharge is upgraded to general.

ISSU E: The applicant contends that prior to failing a drug test she served without a negati ve mark on her record. She ultimatel y admits she went through a rough patch and made a mistake; however, she is currently utilizing counseling to recover from this terri ble period.  She also presented evidence of service-connected trauma.

The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martia l and that the convening authority approved the sentence, which i ncl uded a bad conduct discharge. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appea l through the jud icial process. The Air Force Discharge Review Board is empowered to change the characterization of the discharge only if clemency is detenni ned to be appropriate. Clemency i s an act of mercy, or i nstance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The Board carefull y reviewed the applicant' s mil itary record of service and found that there were instances of deficiencies i n the appl icant's conduct, i.e., two letters of repri mand. However, after considering the testi mony of the applicant, the witnesses and the evidence submitted the Board found that clemency was warranted due to mi tigati ng circumstances. Accordi ngly, the Boa rd  voted to upgrade the applicant"s characte1ization of service to general (under honorable cond itions).  A change in the reason for d ischarge is not authorized under Federal statute.	·

CONCLUSION : The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant" s puni tive d ischarge by Special Court-Martial was not appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there  is sufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge to a general (under honorable conditions) service character ization.

Attachment: Exami ner's Brief