AFSN/SSAN
um11rrr1r,	

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	
X  RECORD REVIEW	
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZA TJON	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION Of COUNSU.	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

'   NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (I-AST, FIRST MIDDLE  INITIAL)

-GRADE

MEMBERS SITTING

x
x
x
x

:OEARING DATE
12 JUN 03

INDEX NUMBER
A67.90

CASE NUMBER
FD2002-0509

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
J	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE 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.

SAFIMIBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

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

FD2002-0509	

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 conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  She had an Article 15, a vacation of suspended punishment, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Record of Individual  Counseling. Her misconduct included failure to go, sleeping on  duty, theft, and drunk driving. At the time of the discharge, member consulted counsel and waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf. The Board noted member was given several opportunities to correct her behavior  but was either unwilling or unable to do so. Member was age 21 to 22 when her misconduct happened, the same age as other airmen who honorably complete their service without misconduct. There was no evidence she was immature, or didn't know right from wrong. The Board determined member was responsible for her actions and was held accountable for them because her misconduct was disruptive to the unit. The Board did not find sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade, and 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.

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