AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL  A"PPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

AFSNISSAN

,·w111•111u

X   RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x
x
x

INDEX NUMBER
A67.50	APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OFNOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
12 JUN 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0524

4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANOOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RO FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ  FORM	2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD'.2002-0524	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but declined to exercise this right.	_
The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. Pursuant to her guilty pleas, member was convicted at Special Court Martial for conspiring with a civilian to commit larceny of about $2200.00 from various retail stores, ten specifications of stealing money  from various stores, three specifications of stealing merchandize from various stores, and making a false official statement. She was sentenced to a reduction of two pay grades, forfeitures, and 30 days restriction. At the time of the administrative discharge processing, applicant consulted counsel but waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf. The records also disclosed member had been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and a borderline personality disorder. The Board noted member repeatedly committed very serious acts of misconduct that had a tendency to bring discredit to the armed forces in the eyes of the surrounding civilian community and for which she could have received a punitive discharge. Member was over age 20 when her offenses occurred, essentially the same age as other airmen who complete their terms of service honorably with no such record of criminal behavior. There was no evidence she did not know right from wrong, so she was responsible for her actions and properly held accountable for them. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view 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