AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	CEN

VOTE OF THE BOARD

UOTHC

TllF.R

DENY
x x x x x

ISSI: ES

INDEX Nlll\181:R

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD

A94.05

A67.IO	l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEARING DATE
4 NOV 02

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0275

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAi. RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AlR FORCE DISCHARGE REVlF.W BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

Rl!:MARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appea ra nce with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the A FBCMR.

TO:	I    FROM:
SAF/MIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150·4742

DATE: 4 NOV 02

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1 535 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

FD020275	

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.

:[lfe attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the
,ITT§charge.

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 contends that her discharge was improper because she paid the debts and states that she was not AWOL. The record indicates the applicant received three Article 1 The first one for being AWOL, failure to go and failure to pay just debts. The second one for dishonorably failing to pay a just debt. This Article 15 resulted in a Vacation action, which reduced her to the grade of Airman Basic. The third Article 15 was for failure to  pay just debts. In addition, the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling for financial irresponsibility, failure to return to local area after completion of leave, being late for work on three occasions, and for failure to report back to duty on time. 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