NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

 

ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

GRADE AFSN/SSAN

AIC

 

  

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

  

TYPE GEN

RECORD REVIEW

 

 

 

| NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

  

MR. SAMPSON

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

siti  TOTR ORE BOSBD TT ee “
HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
N+
X+ i
+ %
sin 4
X+ *
Xt+ *
ISSUES A94.06 INDEX NUMBER A67.50 me EXHIBITS SUBMIT TED TO THE BOARD '
A94,12 A67.90 1 JORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
A92.36 2 |APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
A93,24 3 |LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
A94,56 [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 ,
10 Aug 2010 SD=2 0S 00518

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
*RE Code

FROM:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

 

    

Case heard in sWaebineiorm D.C. via video felevonference between Andrews AFB, MD and Randolph AFB, TX.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

§ request.

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNE! COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

ANDREWS AFH, MD 20762-7001

 

 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2)

Previous
CASE NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2008-00518

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), with counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, MD
and Randolph AFB, TX on 10 Aug 2010.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit #5: Applicant’s Contentions
Exhibit #6: Medical Records

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

FINDING: The Board grants upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reason and authority for
discharge. The requested change of reenlistment code is denied.

The Board finds evidence of record does not substantiate an impropriety that would justify a change in the
discharge. However, based upon the record and the 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’s counsel contends the discharge was inequitable and there are three complex reoccurring

themes to this case; 1) Throughout the documented misconduct there were issues that are true, untrue, or
unclear, however, the applicant never knowingly made a false statement; 2) Her command and medical
personne] did not acknowledge that her PTSD symptoms were related to the documented misconduct; and 3)
there was a lack of effort for serious rehabilitation of applicant. The records indicated the applicant reccived
four Letters of Reprimand (LOR), three Records of Individual Counseling (RIC), and two Memorandums for
Record (MFR) for misconduct. Her misconduct included false official statement; failure to comply with
standards; job performance; violation of Quarters two times; failure to go; and financial irresponsibility.
During applicant’s testimony she admitted to the misconduct of one Quarters violation and one false official
statement. Further testimony by the applicant mitigated one allegation of false official statement, one
Quarters violation, failure to go, and financial irresponsibility. Following lengthy questioning and
testimony, the DRB further determined that the additional allegations of misconduct for failure to comply
with standards and job performance were mitigated. The DRB opined that the primary basis for applicant’s
discharge was based on the written feedback and performance evaluations her immediate chain-of-command
received from the Dr. (Capt) C.G., a Dentist she supported as a Dental Assistant. Based on written feedback.
from additional Dentists and patient surveys, the DRB opined that the written feedback applicant receive
from Dr. C.G. did not reflect her overall duty and job performance, and these poor performance evaluations
created an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion for additional minor disciplinary infractions or misconduct
by the applicant. To address applicant’s counsel concern regarding her PTSD, the Board opined that her
leadership was not aware, due to applicant’s desire, of the nature and depth of her affliction and therefore
could not consider any possible diminished capacity when dealing with her misconduct. Further, the Board
opined that any rehabilitation of the applicant was not considered due to her chain-of-command opinion that
her job performance and compliance to standards could not be corrected (based on Dr. C.G. evaluations and
minor misconduct issues). After considering the applicants records and testimony, the Board opined that the
basis for applicant’s discharge was improper. The Board grants the upgrade of the characterization of
discharge to Honorable and change the reason and authority for the discharge to Secretarial Authority.
Issue 2. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable and too harsh because it was based on a minute
incident in 27 months of service with no other adverse actions. The applicant testified and admitted to
misconduct during her period of service. Through the applicant’s testimony and lengthy questioning, the
Board mitigated the most egregious of the applicant’s misconduct. The Board grants the upgrade of the
characterization of discharge to Honorable and change the reason and authority for the discharge to
Secretarial Authority.

 
   
     
   
 

  

Tssue 3. The applicant requests that the reenlistment (RE) code be changed so she may reenlist in the United
States Armed Forces. Through the applicant’s testimony the Board mitigated the most egregious of her
musconduct, however the Board determined the RE code should not be changed.

 
   
  

      

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 that 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 under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

    
     
     
 
 

  

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief