AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  H.EVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	X     RECORD  REVIEW

COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	NO
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBERS SITTIN G

VOTE OF 11IE BOARD
HON	GEN	uonJC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x x

A93.09	A67.10	1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
f-2--+_A_P_PL_I_C.ATJ(c)-N F ORRE V=IE=·--=-o--F_D_l_SC_H__A_R_G,-= -	------j

HEARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE

11 JUL 03

FD2003-0070	COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE  HEARING
Al'l'LICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISION AI, RATIONAL ARE DJSCUSSE);I Q!i!m 1\,TTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW'.l,lOARD PECJSIONAI, RAJ:l{INATJ ;

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

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVJEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002
Previous edition will be used.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD03-0070	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason and Authority for discharge, and to change the RE Code.

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 does not contest her discharge.  She states that she would like an Honorable discharge so that she can get the MGIB and reenl ist in the Air national Guard. The record indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully disobeying an order, wearing a tongue piercing while on base, and making a false official statement. She also received a Vacation action under the UCMJ for failure to go. In addition, she received three Letters of Reprimand and four letters of counseling for insubordinate conduct towards an NCO, lack of military bearing, missing training appointments, COMSEC violation, failure to obey, and failure to show. Additionally, she received seven traffic tickets.  The applicant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade. The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that would warrant an upgrade. If the applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board. If she should choose to exercise this right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the DRB with factual evidence of the inequity and any exemplary post·service accomplishments as well as any contributions to the community. The Board concluded the 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: Examiner1s Brief