AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE 1\-IEMBER (LAST, l<'IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

-GRADE

AFSNISSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

MEMBERS SITTING

X  RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGAN17.ATION OF COUNSEL

x x x x

A94.53, A94.05, A93.07,
A93.11

HEARING DATE

L"IDEX NUMBER
A67.10

CASE NUMSER

]	ORDER APPOINTING TIJE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

03-05-07

FD2002-0490	COUNSEL'S RELpASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL 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 AJR 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

FD2002-0490	

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 the applicant submitted no issues contesting the equity or propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record, the Board was unable to identify any.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions. She had a Letter of Counseling, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and an Article 15. Her misconduct included failure to obey a lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer, insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officers, and writing nine worthless checks totaling about $1442.00 with intent to defraud. These occurred over a 10-month period of time. In her reply to the Article 15, she noted personal and family problems and stress, and also said she realized she had made, some mistakes and accepted responsibility for her poor judgment.' In her reply to the LOR, she disputed the facts and stated she was a "good troop" and deserved an honorable discharge. At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel and waived her right to submit statements on her own behalf. The record reflects member had a lack of regard to her financial obligations. This conduct could have been tried by court-martial and subject to a punitive discharge.. The Board found that applicant committed a serious offense that does not warrant a characterization of honorable, which is only appropriate when the member's service has been so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. Applicant was age 25 and 26 when her misconduct occurred, and there is no evidence that she was immature and did not know right from wrong. The Board felt member was given the opportunity to improve her behavior and was either unwilling or unable to do so. There is no evidence that the discharge was inequitable or improper. The Board finds the applicant's discharge to be appropriate and in accordance with Air Force policy.

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 applicanf s discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief