AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, flRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

TYPE
GEN

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
Al>DRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING

x x x x

A67.50	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	ER OF NOTIFICATION
r-::::.--:-::c:N:"G"=-D=  AT"'E=----------.---c:.:-Acs=E=-cN=u'"M"" BER,,-------------r-4--	RIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
02-12-18	FD2002w0277	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAi. APPERANCE HEARING

s
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.

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

SECREfARY 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

FD2002-0277	

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 that neither the evidence of record or that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. AppJicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. She had two Records  of Individual Counseling, a Letter of Reprimand, and two Articles 15. Her misconduct included two instances of failure to report to work on time, twice failing to obey a lawful order, falsely obtaining meal card privileges when not entitled to them, and appearing in nude photographs on the internet, thus bringing discredit to the armed forces. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf requesting retention, or in the alternative, an honorable discharge. Member now infers the discharge was too harsh because it was based on a few incidents that occurred during a ditlicult period in her life, and she otherwise performed satisfactorily. The board found these issues without merit. While it is understandable that members experiencing personal problems may have additional stress, applicant submitted no documentary evidence of those problems, how they were unique, or that she sought help from available agencies such as the Chaplain, Family Support Center, chain of command, or the Mental Health clinic. The Board noted member had six incidents in an 18-month period, thus establishing a pattern of misconduct. The Board further noted that member was the same age as other airmen who has adhered to the standards when her misconduct occurred, and she knew right from wrong. She was counseled in an effort to help her correct her deficiencies and had several opportunities to improve her behavior. She failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. She was responsible for her actions, and therefore 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.

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