AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE AMN	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL
YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES	INDEX NUMBER

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD

A94.05	A67. 10	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER	ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS  SUBMITTED AT TIME OF

12 Sep 2003	FD-2003-00190

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE

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

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
I 535 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

FD-2003-00190	

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 available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of Discharge is denied.

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record   or  that  provided  by  applicant  substantiates  an impropriety or inequity that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to obey an order, three Letters of Reprimand for financial irresponsibility, presenting a false receipt of payment with the intent to deceive, being late for duty, failure to go and lying.  Additionally, she received four Letters of Counseling for being late for work and for financial irresponsibility.  The applicant states that she believes she was discharged because she filed an Inspector General Report against her supervisors.  The DRB tried for two months to justify the applicants' claims and could not.  They also contacted the individual on two separate occasions to see if she could provide
additional documentation to justify her claim.  She could not.	If she can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  Ifshe should choose to exercise her 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 DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  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.

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