AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 

 

 

“YES NO

x

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN ~ —-
erage SSGT | (ae.

TYPE ae oe Lo — . __ |

UOTHC X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ~~ ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 

VOTE OF THE: BOARD:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS SITTING HON GEN UOTHC “OTHER DENY
_ =x
L. a X
. _ x
xX
| ~~ Xx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 FEB 03 FDO01-00145

 

“FSSUES INDEX NUMBER EXHIBITS SUBMITIED TO THE HOARD:
A97.35, A92,.37, A93.17 A74.00 [ZT | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
y | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE | CASE NUMBER ~ 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE ~—

 

 

COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF ~— “
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

 

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

 

 

| REMARKS

Case heard at Travis AFB, CA

“

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

 
 

ees

 

  

SIGNATURE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

 

 

DATE: 4 FEB03

 

 

 

 

INDORSEMENT
TO: FROM:
SAF/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH APB, TX 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR, EF WING, 3°" FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used.
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | ¢p.01-00145

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of her discharge to general.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board without counsel at Travis AFB,
Califomia, on February 4, 2003.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDINGS: Upgrade of the characterization of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an
inequity or impropriety justifying a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (VOTHC) discharge pursuant to
her request to be discharged in lieu of court-martial for drug abuse. Applicant contends her discharge was
inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident of misconduct in 13 years of service. Review of
the record discloses member was counseled numerous times for domestic disturbances, financial
irresponsibility, and possible alcohol abuse. Her commander also noted she had not lived up to the trust and
responsibility placed in her as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) as regards the drug abuse, the standards
against which she was well aware. Air Force policy in effect at the time of applicant’s discharge, and now,
provides that when a member requests discharge in lieu of court martial, it is customary they receive a
UOTHC characterization of service. Though she initially denied an understanding of the ramifications of
her Chapter 4 request, she ultimately admitted that at the time she submitted the Chapter 4 request, she
freely chose not to be tried and was fully aware that she would likely receive a VOTHC discharge. And,
while the Board surmised member’s performance for much of her career was acceptable—even
outstanding—they noted that drug abuse is not remotely compatible with Air Force standards; it is a serious
breach of discipline, and a gross deviation from the standards expected of NCOs. Such unacceptable
conduct adversely overshadows and negates one’s otherwise good military duty performance.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an
impropriety or an inequity that would justify an upgrade in the character of the discharge.

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD-01-00145
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

etna ota (Former SSGT) MISSING DOCUMENTS

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a UOTH Disch fr USAF 89/05/05 UP AFR 39-10,
Chapter 4 (Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial). Appeals for General Disch, ;

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 53/05/08. Enlmt Age: 21 7/12. Disch Age: 35 11/12. Educ:HS DIPL.
AFOT: N/A. A-20, E-45, G-44, M-12. PAFSC: 62370 - Services Specialist.
DAS: 85/09/12.

b. Prior Sv: AFRes 74/12/27 - 75/03/20 (2 months 24 days) (Inactive).

(2) Enld as AB 75/03/21 for 4 yrs. Ext 78/03/31 for 12
months. Ext 78/05/22 for 4 months. Ext 78/06/22 for 1 month. Reenld 78/12/22
for 4 yrs. Reenld 82/11/15 for 4 yrs. Ext 84/08/03 for 22 months. Ext 84/12/14
for 22 months. Svd: 11 yrs 8 months 17 days, all AMS. AMN - 75/07/21. Alc -
76/03/21. SRA - 77/12/01. SGT-(APR Indicates): 78/05/02-79/01/09. SSGT -
82/08/01. APRs: 8,8,8,6,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9.

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Reenld as SSGT 86/12/08 for 6 yrs. Svd: 2 Yrs 4 Mo 28 Das, all AMS.

b. Grade Status: none.
c. Time Lost: none.
d. Art 15's: none.
e. Additional: none.

f. CM: none,

g. Record of SV: 86/01/10 87/01/09 Hickam AFB 9 (Annual)
87/01/10 88/01/09 Hickam AFB 9 (Annual)
88/01/10 88/10/20 Hickam AFB 9 (CRQ)
(Discharged from Travis AFB)

h. Awards & Decs: AFTR, AFCM, AFAM, AFGCM W/2 OLCs, NCOPMER, AFLSAR W/2
OLCs, AFOSLTR W/1 OLC, AFOSSTR, AFOUA,

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (14) Yrs (4) Mos (9) Das
TAMS: (14) Yrs (1) Mos (15) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 00/12/29.
FDQ1-00145

(Change Discharge to General)

Issue 1: I have served 12 years and more as a very successful food service
accountant/SIMS Administrator travelled (sic) worldwide with minimum guidance
with 3 (Three) PACAF Hennesseys and one (1) worldwide Hennessey Award.

I am asking for an upgrade to my last discharge, and need help, please.

My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 13
years of service with no other adverse action.

ATCH
none.

01/02/23/ia