AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTING
x x x x x

HEARING DATE
03-01 03

EX NUMBER
A47.00

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0296

l ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LEITER OF NOTIFJCATJON
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FlLE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDffiONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDlNG OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel. DD Fm 149 submitted. The case will be forwarded to the AFBCMR for further processing.

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DlSCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WlNG, 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

FD2002-0296	

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. Applicant was discharged for minor disciplinary infractions and failure to pay a just debt. She had two Records of Individual Counseling, three Letters of Reprimand, and an Article 15. She was also placed on the Control Roster and had an Unfavorable Information File. Her misconduct included two instances of issuing worthless checks, financial irresponsibility, making a false statement, missing a troop movement, and various dress and appearance violations. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf stating she felt discharge was appropriate and fair. She further stated she planned to resolve her financial problems, but she realized it would take time, and she did not want to further burden anyone else while doing so. Member now notes her performance was otherwise satisfactory and her financial problems have been resolved. The Board noted member had seven incidents in a 9-month period, thus clearly establishing a pattern of misconduct The Board further noted 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 several times in an effort to help her correct her deficiencies and had multiple opportunities to improve her behavior. She failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records reVIew.

While the Board commends applicant on her desire to return to military 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