AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	-X   RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

NA.ME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA noN	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

UOTHC	OTHER
x x x
x
x

REARING DATE
18 JUN 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0538

1
2	APPLICATION FOR REVJEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDlTlONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

s
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL Al'PERANCE HEARING
PIClit\ll\:lE'Jili	\V.BOMU)  DECISIONAL  RATTONALE.

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

SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUJTE 40
RANDOLPH 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 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

'

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD02-0538	

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.

ISSUE: Applicant does not contest her discharge. She simply states that she wants an upgrade in order to received her GI Bill. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go. She also received three Letters of Reprimand for failure to go, dereliction of duty and making a  false  official statement, and for financial irresponsibility. In addition, she received four Records of  Individual Counseling for being late for work, and dereliction of duty (three times). The applicant cited her desire to receive the G.L Bill benefits as justification  for upgrade.  The DRB was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that would warrant an upgrade. The Board found no evidence of any inequity  or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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