AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN
TYPE GEN [X PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECORD REVIEW
OC RGENSEL TT Name OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION : ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
XPt
X*+
xe
X*+
Ket
— om -
ISSUES ag 4.9 INDEX NUMBER 67,10 EXHIBITS SU BMITTED. TO THE BOARD ee
A94.06 1 [ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A94.12 2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A94,56 3 [LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
14 Jan 2010 FD- 2008-00475
R TIONAL E ARE DISCUSSED ON THE. ATTACHED AIR RUE GER VIEW BOARD DECISIONAL: RATIONALE, SS
Case heard i in Washington, D. C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board.
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’s request.
*RE Code (3K)
+Narrative Reason (Secretarial Authoritv)
oe : DATE:
20/2010
TO; “ FROM: ,
SAF/MRBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
. va apna mer ootier AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
RANDOLPH APB, TX 78150-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous
CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00475
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 appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at
Andrews AFB on 14 Jan 2010. The following witness also testified on the applicant’s behalf: Ms. NS, (aunt).
The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 5: Applicant’s Contentions
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.
FINDING: The Board grants the requested relief.
The Board finds the evidence of record does not substantiate an impropriety that would justify a change in
the discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by the applicant, the Board finds the
applicant’s character of discharge and reason and authority for discharge to be inequitable.
ISSUE:
Issue 1. Applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because she was falsely accused of being
disrespectful and having a problem with authority. The applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR)
from her supervisor’s supervisor (SMSgt SS) the day prior to her scheduled date to start maternity Jeave.
The LOR was in reference to her unprofessional conduct from 14-17 Aug with the Medical Group staff. She
received a direct order to not contact the Medical Group staff without one of four members of her Squadron
staff present. According to the record and applicants testimony, she was contacted by the Medical Group
staff that there was a change in the point of contact that was working her referral for delivery of her child
(from Major G to Major F). On 14 Aug when she contacted Major F regarding her referral, she was told that
missing from her file was the letter which would allow her to travel to Chicago. The applicant had already
provided this information and became upset when Major F told her that her referral would be canceled
without this letter, especially since the applicant had been working the referral since May. The applicant
stated that she had an appointment the next day (15 Aug) with her doctor and could bring the letter following
her appointment. Applicant was unable to make the appointment on the 15th and when she notified Major F,
her referral was canceled. When she was able to make her doctor’s appointment two days later (17 Aug),
she received the travel authorization letter and provided it to Major F. However, Major F had already
contacted the Squadron Commander (on 15 Aug) and complained of applicant’s disrespectful, rude, and
unprofessional behavior over the phone. During applicant’s testimony she admitted that she was extremely
upset and crying, but if anything, was persistent in questioning Major F as to why the travel approval was
missing and the reason for the cancelation of her referral. After considering the applicant’s records and
testimony, the Board opined that the LOR was too harsh. The Board grants the upgrade of the
characterization of discharge to Honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change
the reenlistment code.
Issue 2. Applicant contends she was punished for using MEO and the IG and was railroaded into signing
UIF documents. The applicant states when she went to the IG to fill out a complaint against SMSet SS, she
was punished with an Article 15, reduction in grade, 15 days of extra duty, and later an LOR. She states that
her MEO and IG complaints were unsubstantiated due to SMSet SS having friends working these offices.
The Board determined the punishment received by the applicant was too harsh and the influence of SMSgt
SS (against the applicant) on the Squadron Commander and First Sergeant was improper. The Board grants
the upgrade of the characterization of discharge to Honorable, change the reason and authority for the
discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.
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. However, in view of the
foregoing findings, the Board concludes the overall quality of applicant’s service is more accurately
reflected by an Honorable discharge and the reason for the discharge is more accurately described as
Secretarial Authority and the reenlistment code changed to 3K under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02500
JA states that with regard to the allegation of assault committed by the applicant on a senior NCO, he has failed to present relevant evidence or any error or injustice warranting relief. Both agreed that the NCO was upset and frightened when she came out of the office and one heard the NCO say the words "don't touch me." She completely fabricated the yelling, cursing, and assault and battery.
XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX all agreed that the applicant had an attitude problem. XXXXXXX informed the commander that he told the applicant that she had a “s--- attitude.” On 19 Jul 91, XXXXXX and the applicant asked to have a meeting with the commander. On 23 Jul 91, XXXXXXX, noted the applicant’s absence from work during the day.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01889
The applicant requests in the statement that eight areas of evidence be reviewed: 1. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of an 18-page congressional complaint of evidence, with attachments; the LOR and contested OPR with attachments, emails, a conversation transcript with her former commander, memoranda for record, a witness statement, character reference/witness lists, and extracts from her master personnel records. The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2010-00427
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD AFSN/SSAN 576-39-1434 X PERSONAL ArPEARANCE TYPE GEN RECORD REVIEW ,] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL MEMBER SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER X+ ee Act AC ene Ne mr | | | i | | | | ISSUES 94.02 ' A6v.00 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 1 2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 |BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00849
Maj M added she encouraged the enlisted member with the ROTC package because “then she would be out of the military and what she did then [was] her business.” On 11 Sep 01, the squadron commander (Maj S) recommended to the wing commander that the applicant be involuntarily discharged for serious and recurring misconduct punishable by military authorities, specifically, his knowing and willing engagement in an ongoing unprofessional relationship with a female enlisted member of his squadron...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03377
In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with the investigation into the allegations against her, documentation associated with her administrative demotion action, and documentation associated with her referral EPR. The IG analysis concluded the preponderance of evidence supported the conclusion the adverse administrative actions taken against her were based solely on the evidence supporting the action and not because protected disc1osures had been made to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02499
The IG dismissed the complaint because documented evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from her record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0217
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2002-0217 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. After a thorough and complete consideration of the information submitted by the applicant, the applicant’s compelling personal testimony, and information contained in the record, the Board concluded there was sufficient mitigation and extenuation to substantiate upgrade of the discharge and to change the reason for the discharge. For this...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...