AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

-RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE

NAME OF COUNSEL ANP OR ORGANIZATION

X
APDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION
o	
·COUNSEL
o	

MEMBERS SITTING

HON

VOTE OF THE BOARP GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

INDEX NUMBER

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD

A67.90	I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
2	
HEARING DATE
17 Jan 03

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0263

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

TAPE RECORDING Of PHRSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
A!Jl!lnA.NT.j!SifS ANDTHeBOAllD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
, ..(: :.<.,·· .. A,«>:;<
REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD 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

FD02-0263	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge,  and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was able to identify none that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record.  The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge.  The records indicated applicant had two Article 15's, one for refusing to return to correctional custody after being medically cleared to do so and dereliction in the performance of her duties.  The other one was for failing to maintain her weight/body fat within standards in order to get out of an impending PCS assignment to Kunsan Air Base, Korea.  This second Article  15 was dismissed by the applicant's Administrative Discharge Board.  She also received two Records of Individual Counseling for substandard job performance, unacceptable attitude and behavior, and for having a poor attitude.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative/repetitive behavior.  The Board concluded the disciplinary infractions were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.  The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of 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