f
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INJTIAL)

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
0)' COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

-

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIV. TION OF COUNSEL

NAME

x

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

A67.10	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTJFICA TION
2	
HEARING DATE
02-12-18

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0283
4	
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO TIIE BOARD
ADDITJONAL 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.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
I 535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 31ID FLOOR ANDREWS  AFB,  MD  207627002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2002-0283	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change her reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board but decHned 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,  change of reason  and authority for the discharge,  and change of reenlistment code, are 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. Applicant was discharged for minor discipJinary infractions. She had three Letters of Counseling, five Letters of Reprimand, an Unfavorable Information File, and was placed on the control roster. Her misconduct included seven instances of failure to report to work or to report on time over a l 0-month period, and sleeping on post. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived her right to submit statements in her own behalf. Member now notes she was young, immature, and inexperienced when in the Air Force, and regrets not fulfilling her commitment. The Board noted however that member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards when her misconduct occurred, and she knew right from wrong. She was counseled in an effort to heJp 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.

The applicant cited her recent service in the Missouri Army National Guard, and her desire to transition to the Illinois Air National Guard. While the Board commends applicant on her desire and post-service achievements and service, and is sympathetic to the impact a General discharge has on her reenlistment code, this is not a matter of equity or propriety that warrants an upgrade.

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