TYPE

[!.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD
•

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, l<'IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

111

m•t11L	••••••
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X   R ECORD REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSJf,I.
YES	NO
x

MEMBERS SITTING

HON	GEN

VOTE OF THE BOARD
UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

EXHffiITS SUBMITTED TO nu:BOARI>
1	ORDER APPOfNTTNG THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
2	
24 JUN 03

FD2003-0057	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE IlOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Of
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DWCUSSEO ON Tl-IE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW IJOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.

REMARKS
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 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WfNG, 31<o 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

FD03-0057	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE: Applicant contends that her discharge was too harsh because she didn't have a security clearance and hasn't done her job since she arrived on station. The record indicates the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand for dereliction of duty, failure to obey an order, being disrespectful to an NCO, and Unauthorized use of a government vehicle. In addition, she also received three Records of Individual Counseling for a security violation, being late for work and sending pornographic material by email and inappropriate use of a government computer. The Board opined that these disciplinary infractions had nothing to do with the fact that she did not have a security clearance. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. The Board found no evidence of any inequity or impropriety on which to base a decision to upgrade the discharge.

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