1 

1 

1 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

GRADE 

A l C  
I 

I 

I 

RECORD REVIEW 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,  
TYPE  GEN  IX 
I 

.,,,FNggL 
YES 

I 

No 

I 

I 

I 

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

MEMBER SITTING 

1  AYSNISSAN 

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,  

ADDRESS AND OH ORGANILA rlON OF COUNSEL 

VO'r'E OF '1'86 BOARD 

~" - 

IlON  T" ( i t N  

1  UOTHC' 

OTIICR 

- 

I  DENY 

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l  

ISSUES 

A94.05 

INDEX NUMBER 

A67.10 

1 

IIEARINC DATE 

1  CASE NLIMBIR 

EXHIBITS SUBMmER 

1  I  ORDER APPOINTING TIlE BOARD 
2  1  APPLICA'I'ION  FOK  KEV1F.W OF DISCHARGE 
3  1  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 
4 
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL  FILE 
COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADD1'1 IONAL,  EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL AI'I'EAIIANUE 
I  TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL, API'F.AKANI:F. 

I 

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. 

* - RE Code 
+ - Reason and Authority 

L-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..,..-..-..-..-.-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.,..,..,..-I 
w,,, 

,  , , 

, 

, 

'CO: 

SAFIMRBR 
550 1: S'I'KEKI' WES'I',  SIJITE 40 
KANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742 

INDORSEMENT 

m ,  , ,  ,  ,  , , 

, 

, 

FROM: 

D A ~ :

 6/12/2006 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR  FORCE  UISCHARGE REVIEW  ROARn 
1535 COMMAND  DR.  EE WING. 3RU VLOOR 
ANnREWS AFB, ~ n ' 2 o 7 6 2 - 7 0 o 2  

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will be  used 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2005-00496 

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade  of discharge to honorable, change the reason and authority 
for the discharge, and change the reenlistment code. 

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  [Iischarge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at 
Andrews AFB on 06 Jun 2006. 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit #6: Character reference letters (2) 

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. 

FINDINGS:  Upgrade  of  discharge,  change  of  reason  and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of 
reenlistment code are denied. 

'I-he  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. 

ISSUE:  Applicant  contends discharge was inequitable because  it was too harsh.  The records indicated the 
applicant  received  an  Article  15  and  four  Letters  of  Reprimand  for  misconduct.  The  applicant  was 
disciplined with two Letters of Reprimand for failure to attend mandatory formations on two occasions.  The 
LORs referred to previous incidents of similar nature.  The applicant received her third Letter of Keprimand 
for an incident of inappropriate outburst of anger and insubordination that demonstrated a loss of self control 
and unprofessionalisn~. This Letter of Reprimand also indicated previous problems oi' a similar nature.  The 
applicant received non-judicial  punishment,  Article  15, for sleeping while on duty.  Despite receiving three 
LORs and an Article  15 during one rating period, the applicant's  duty performance  documented  by  enlisted 
performance  report  closing  8  months  after  non-judicial  punishment  documented  very  good  duty 
performance.  Shortly after  close-out  of  this  performance  report  the  applicant, while  on duty,  improperly 
pulled her  loaded weapon  from its holster during an argument with her boyfriend  at the  barracks,  a serious 
offense  for  which  she  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  followed  shortly  thereafter  by  notification  of 
administrative discharge.  During testimony,  she stated she pulled her weapon in a threat to harm herself not 
her  boyfriend.  Although  not  in  the  available  records,  the  applicant  testiiied  she  voluntarily  sought 
counseling in the life skills clinic.  'The  DRB opined that through these administrative  actions, the applicant 
had  ample opportunities to  change her pattern of negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct 
was  a  significant  departure  from  conduct  expected  of  all  military  members.  The  characterization  of the 
discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. 

The Board noted the good aspects of her duty perforinancc as well as character letters written by supervisors 
at the time of discharge and those submitted by the applicant at the time of the Board but opined that 
although she appeared to have had overcome her initial disciplinary infractions, thc final incident when she 
improperly pulled her weapon was a very serious infraction that clearly established a recurring pattern of 
conduct unacceptable in all military members that was not responsive to corrective actions.  They found the 
seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The 
Board considered the personal stressors the applicant was experiencing at thc time of her offenses along with 
the documented duty performance and concluded that her misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her 
service.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the rcasons which were the basis for this 
case. 

CONCLUSLONS:  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 that the applicant was provided f ~ ~ l l  

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. 

1 Attachment: 

Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARaE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former AlC)  (HGH AlC) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd a GEN Disch fr USAF Robins AFB, GA on 12 May 
05 UP A F I   36-3208, PARA 5.49 (Misconduct -  Minor Disciplinary Infractions). 
Appeals for Honorable Disch. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 19 Jul 81.  Enlmt Age: 20 6/12.  Disch Age: 23 9/12. Educ: HS DLPL. 
AFQT: N/A.  A-61,  E-52,  G-40,  M-36. PAFSC: 3P051- Security Forces Journeyman. 
DAS: 12 Oct 02. 

b.  Prior Sv:  (1) AFRes 23 Jan 02 -  29 Apr 02  (3 mos 7 das)(Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Enlisted as AB 30 Apr 02 for 4 years Svd: 03 Yrs 00 Mo 13 Das, all AMS. 
b.  Grade Status:  A1C -  1 Sep 03 
Amn -  1 Nov 02 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art  15,s:  (I) 14 May 04, RAF  Croughton, England -  Article 92.  You, 

who should have known of your duties, on or about 17 Apr 
04, were derelict in the performance of those duties in 
that you negligently failed to refrain from sleeping on 
duty, as it was your duty to do.  Suspended reduction to 
A m .   Thirty days extra duty. 
(NO appeal) (No mitigation) 

e.  Additional: LOR/UIF, 3 FEB 05 -  Dereliction of duty by drawing her 

weapon without proper justification. 

LOR, 02 APR 04 -  Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO. 
LOR, 31 MAR 04 -  Failure to go. 
LOR, 03 JAN 04 -  Failure to go. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 30 Apr 02 -  30 Dec 03  RAF Croughton  3  (Initial) 

30 Dec 03 -  29 Dec 04  RAF Croughton  4  (Annual) 
Examiners note:  Last EPR dates are off by one day. 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  NDSM, GWOTSM, AFOSLTR, AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS: (03) Yrs  (03) Mos  (20) Das 
TAMS: (03) Yrs  (00) MOS  (13) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 19 Dec 05. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable.) 

NO  ISSUES SUBMITTED. 

ATCH 
AF 418, 18 Nov  2004. 

t)EPASn*1VIENT OF M E  &R  FORCE 

a.  @I  mabatit 23 W W3 WMB ari dut? as a 422 M$"$&ty 

.&VB 

bndgm 
mwd wbr'Ics you wm-gcd&a 
refcfitPrrMp with hinL  go? &%  nwismnduct? you d p &  a ~ t w  
{Ai%a.cimpillt 1 ), 

Q ~ I

f b W  m ~ m w   with a,9m,p 
 y o u h  y w  datx w"apnn b m   bolskwmd pc~inted jt at tbc 
~ w ' r & * a & d l < w  m d e r  &&~@$uI*  p ~ m l

 

of ~cprimddaM 3 Pa&O$ 

gt&rg&$y 
I  UCW d a t d  14 Ma$ W4 (Am- 

fail&, fo roh& 

21, 

X 7 & 04, ypa w e  d ~ l i &  

iin &E  perfqmce d 5 ' ~ w  d i m  in that y ~ u  

s w i ~ g  pa &py.  For this ~ m & a ,  

y ~ u  were p d d  und&  &id& 

d.  On or about 29 h/diir 04, you failed to 80 tta your qpointcxf place of duly.  For this tlrisconcfuct, 

yuu raeiud a Mc?a of R e p h d  dated 31 ?+far 04 (Plftaclunent 4). 

re;cormnetldattian rn attached The cgmrnandcr exercising SPCMiurisdiction or higher authority 

4,  You hue, the right to coiw~lt wrns~!~ M;liiw le@  coumd hti~ h ob~inad to w~ist you. 

--II"Ulru*- 

s$n. You may cofisdt dtri1im c o w d  at your ow sXpWs:pfd 

td 1AF hketd~&ntb, at DSN 22&3dgg &I 

sc~Wm &-QX~@  to 
tdva 

9 
rn e t o n  ibr p o d  cause shown.  I will a7W- 

m t w h m e b y  

itr yasw a m  bWf  Any st8imihles p u  mt  tllp! 
MmU5 d m  y6%1 request md 

to Ule 8qmtion mthodty. 

8.  hypemow? k & d m  ;yan 
6p2,y of AE3.3813208 is av&lablta for your use ax W

h & & k w v & b h  
 Room. 

y

Primcy&taf!47dIg A 

9. 

thil gtacBd acbwj&lrfnmt md t&m it- to me f m&i*dHg.