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 BOARD

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

 

}
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER

 

 

 

02 Aug 2012 FD-2010-00427

Case heard 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.

 

 

 

 
   

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
SAF/MRBR AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

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

ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7001

 

Previous
CASE NUMBER

  
  

  

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

  
 
  

FD-2010-00427

   

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

  
  

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at
Andrews AFB, Maryland on 02 Aug 2012.

    
 
  

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit 6: Statement from applicant

Exhibit 7: Transcript

Exhibit 8: Greeting card from cadet

    
   
   
 

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

FINDING: The Board grants upgrade of the discharge to honorable and the change of reason and authority
for discharge.

    
      
 

ISSUE:
The applicant contends her discharge was inequitable and unfair when compared to other cases of similar

misconduct. The records indicated the applicant received one Letter of Reprimand (LOR), a Letter of
Counseling (LOC) and a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC) for misconduct. The LOR was the primary
reason for the applicant’s discharge, for fraternizing and engaging in an unprofessional relationship with an
enlisted member (Article 134 of UCMJ), and violating a 72-hour quarters restriction (Article 92 of UCMJ)
by traveling to Tennessee six-hours before the end of the restriction. The LOC was issued for using
inappropriate tone and demeanor with Security Forces Squadron personnel following a traffic stop. The RIC
was issued for a one-time instance of reporting to work late and was not used as part of the discharge
recommendation. The applicant was discharged with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge
for the fraternization and unprofessional conduct prior to her marriage to an Air Force enlisted member, A1C
GT. During the hearing the applicant testified that she and AlC GT married without ever dating or having
any personal or intimate contact, “I simply married someone because J knew I couldn’t date him.” She
testified that they had snippets of 30-second conversations in passing in their squadron building, and
happened to run-in-to each other at a Chinese restaurant in June 2006 where they were each picking up
carry-out orders of food; while waiting for their food, they sat at the same table and had a casual 10-15
minute conversation. Both the applicant and A1C GT worked in the same squadron building and would run
into each other in the halls and snack bar. The applicant was an Air Battle Manager student and A1C GT
was on the faculty in the aircraft simulator. The applicant said that early on in her eight-month training
course (late Winter to early Spring), AlC GT was an instructor four to five times during this four week block
of instruction and she had nothing but professional work related interaction with him during this time. The
applicant received verbal counseling in July 2006 by two squadron Assistant Director of Operations (ADOs)
regarding unprofessional: relationships, following a report from one of the squadron officers that the
applicant and AlC GT had been seen together at the Chinese restaurant. However, this counseling did not
mention AIC GT’s name or present any specific details of her unprofessional encounters with enlisted
personnel. The applicant testified that she did not know specifically what they were discussing and it was
possibly about a previous relationship she had following her Officer Training School commissioning. Since
she did not have any kind of relationship with A1C GT, she didn’t associate the counseling with him.

       
      
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 

With regards to the quarters violation, the applicant testified that she was placed on 72-hours quarters on 6
Sep 2006 at approximately 0800. There was no start time on this quarters form or any previous quarters
form she had received, and in the past if she was planning a weekend trip to Tennessee had been placed on
quarters, she would not leave for the trip until the day the quarters expired. It was never previously
discussed with her physician or her squadron leadership as a violation of the quarters restriction, and her
leadership was aware of her travel to Tennessee as previously approved. As her current 72-hours quarters
restriction would have expired at approximately 0800 on 9 Sep 2006, when she left for Tennessee at 0200 on
9 Sep 06, this was a six-hour violation of that restriction. Her leadership became aware of the violation
when she and A1C GT reported their 9 Sep 2006 marriage when they reported back to work on 11 Sep 2006;
when asked what time she left for Tennessee, she provided the accurate time she departed. The applicant
also testified that any quarters restrictions she was placed on after this incident, her physician placed a start
and stop time on the quarters form. The applicant also testified that she and A1C GT drove separately to
Tennessee to be married. As unbelievable and inconceivable as the applicant’s relationship with AlC GT
appeared, the DRB believed the applicant was being truthful and honest in her statements and there was no
fraternization or unprofessional relationship with A1lC GT prior to their marriage, and the discharge
characterization was inequitable. Based on the overall evidence and the applicant’s testimony, the Board
grants the upgrade of the characterization of discharge to Honorable, and changes the reason and authority

for the discharge to Secretarial Authority.

 
   
     
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
       
   
 
  

  

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