AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

GRADE

AB

¢11

RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

AFSN/SS,A.N .

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

A67.10

		1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	
		2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE	
		3	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 DATE

06 Dec 2003	CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00298			

Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR	

TO:

FROM:

SAF/MRBR
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, JRD 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-2003-00298	

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

ISSUE:

The applicant submitted no issues and requested that the review be completed based on the available service record. The Board reviewed the entire record and found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The records indicated that the applicant received two nonjudicial punishment actions for twice failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of  duty  and wrongfully appropriating a car and a cellular phone, and a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. The applicant also received a summary court-martial conviction for failure to go to her appointed place of duty. Additionally, the applicant received four counselings, five Letters of Reprimand, and had her promotion to airman first class withheld. The DRB opined that through these administrative nonjudicial, and judicial actions, the applicant had  ample opportunities to change her repetitive, negative behavior. The Board concluded the disciplinary infractions were a significant departure from the conduct expected of all military members.

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:	.,
'f,
Examiner's Brief	'..	"	II'	

1

.,,