AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIA L)	GRA DE
(b)(6)
TYPE	x	I	PERSONAL APPEARAN CE	I	RECORD  REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEi, ANO OR ORGANIZAT I ON	ADDRESS Ai"D OR ORGAl'llZA TIOl'I Of COUNSEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF TUE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
(b)(6)	X*#

X*#
x	*#
X*#

ISSUES	A94.53	INDEX NUM9£A	A72.00	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
I ORDER APPOINTING Tll E BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REV IEW 01 DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICAT ION

X*#

4	BRIEF Of PERSONNEL FLLE	-
COUNSEL"S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIB ITS SUBM ITTED AT TIMEOF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEA RfNG

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

12 May 2015	FD-2014-00698
APPLlCANr'S ISSUE AN'C> THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE Al\£ DISCUSSED ON 1llEA1TACHED AIR FOCJ; DISOIARGE REVl.EW BOARD DECISIONAL ltATIONALli.

Case heard i n Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an appl ication to the A FBCMR.

*RE
#Narrative

(b)(6)

INDORSEMENT	DATE : 6/16'2015
TO:	l'ROM:

SAF/MRBR

SECRETARY Of THE A I R FORCEPERSONNEJ, COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARG E REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

15.15 COMMAND DR. EE WING. JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	AllOREWSAFB.  10 2076i 7001

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE  'UMBER

FD-2014-00698	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for the discharge and the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), with counsel, via video teleconference between Joint Base Andrews Maryland, and Joint Base San Antonio Texas on May 12, 2015.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Applicant 's Contentions/character letter.

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

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge, change of the narrative reason, and change of reenlistment code.

ISSUE: The applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable discharge - Chapter 4, Request of Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board, under i ts responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant 's discharge, is authorized  to change the characterization  of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption , to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant" s record of service included a Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial. Her misconduct included one charge and specification of larceny and one charge and specification of making a false official statement.

The applicant accepts full responsib ility for the events that led to her discharge; however, she feels that her stress level and lack of maturity played a role in her behavior. The applicant also submitted that she believes her time served in the Air Force was honorable . Upon notification of discharge, the applicant requested and received a Chapter 4, discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial. In the applicant's request dated February 3, 2003, she was made aware that she may be discharged with an Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) service characterization. She was also aware of the adverse nature of such a discharge. The Board concluded that the applicant made an informed decision when she requested the Chapter 4 discharge and that the negative aspects of the applicant 's service outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force career. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity to warrant an upgrade of the discharge characterization, reason for the discharge or the reenlistment code.

CONCLUSION: 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.

ln view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of d ischarge and determines the discharge should remai n unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief