MEMB.ERS  SJ'IT1'.'{G
x x x x
x

A91.07	A67. 10

ORDER ---  Tl!'JGTHEBOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

UJ;..\JUNG  DATE
010105

3	LETroR OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRiEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

AT TIMEOP

U:.MAIUC!
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/wit hout counsel, and the right to subrnit an appHcation to the AFBCMR.

i

SAF/MIBR
550C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

AFHQ FOR.\10-2077,JAN  00

(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVCEW BOARD
l 535 COMMAND DR, EE WING. 3Ro FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 2()762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASENUMl,IER	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief

Issues: The applicant's issues deal with her unauthorized phone calls and uniform violations and will be addressedjointly.	The applicant contents that she received an Article 15 for making out of town phone  calls while on base and that other members of her squadron who did the same thing were not punished.  She
would like her discharged upgrade and feels like she should have only received a written reprimand. The applica	t'	1'	.	1tion of the uniform regulation, AFR 35-10. She
receive	dA.,PJ /. :.,0    l<jl-J'-e J.	1st debts. The applicant received an Article 15 for obtaini		wuvr	()	ed telephone service. This Article  15was suspended in
part bu	to go to her place of duty. The DRE opined that through
these a·	hments, the applicant had ample opportunities to change
her nee	Jplicant, although minor in nature when analyzed
individ	m that could not be tolerated. The Board concluded that
the cha	riate due to her misconduct.

The Be	quity inthis case upon which to base an upgrade of discha1

CONC	includes that the discharge was consistent with the
proced	:harge regulation and was within the discretion of the
dischai	ided full administrative due process.

Inview 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.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief