AIR FORCE DISCHARGE Rl<:VIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	X   RECORD REVIEW

YES	NO
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANllAflON

ADDRESS AND OK ORGANllATION OF COUNSEL

VOTE OF nlE BOARD

MEMBERS SITTING	UOTIJC

on1ER

DENY
x x x x x

JSSUES
A94.53,A92.37, A67.09

INDEX NUMBER
A67.90

EXHIBITS Sl!llMITTl!:D TO THE BOARb·
APPOINTING THE BOARD

ATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE

HEAIUNG DATE	CASE  NUMBER
03-03-07	FD2002-0466

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL ltATlONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATrA REMARKS
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEAR.ING

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

TO:

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

FD2002-0466	

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 avai1able pertinent data on the applicant and the factors 1eading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge is denied.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discip11ne. She had four  Letters of Reprimand (LOR),  a Record of Individual Counseling, two Articles 15, and an Unfavorable Information File. Her misconduct included three instances of failure to go, failure to obey a lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer, disrespect to her supervisor, failure to obtain authority for off-duty employment, failure to pay her delinquent government travel card debt, failure to follow a technical order, and making a false official statement. These occurred over a 9month period of time. The Board noted that when her misconduct occurred, member was the same age as other airmen who had adhered to the standards, and in spite of the unit's efforts to help member correct her deficiencies, she was not motivated enough to conform to standards and her misconduct continued. At the time of the discharge, applicant waived her right to submit statements on her own behalf, after consulting counsel. She was counseled by her unit several times in an effort to help her correct her deficiencies and had many opportunities to improve her behavior. She failed to respond to those rehabilitative efforts, so she was held accountable for her actions. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

Applicant cited her desire to receive his G.I. Bill education benefits as justification for an upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact of the loss of these benefits on applicant, 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 app1icant 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