NAME OI< SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

.GR,ADE.

AFSN/SSAN

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

•11•11111-   ,

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

 	x 	

MEMBER SITTING

ISSUES	A94.05	INDEX NU!lf BER	A67.50

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER
23 Sep 2003	FD-2003-00303

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

x x x

l	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TJON
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT
PERSONAL APPEARANCE

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:

•'ROM:

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, 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-2003-00303	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Bom·d (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  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  And that she wasn't properly diagnosed until September of 2001.  The records indicated the applicm1t received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge in May of 2001 for a pattern of misconduct	discreditable involvement with military or civil ian authorities and a civilian conviction.  The applicant was cited for driving while her license was suspended, failed to report to her appointed place of duty, operated a vehicle while intoxicated (twice), and was intoxicated in a public place (twice).  After the 2"d conviction for her DWI, she received a year in jail, which was suspended and l 80day home detention.  One and a half months later, she was arrested again for violating her probation by being intoxicated.  The DRB opined that through these actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well since her discharge m1d that she in on the road to recovery, however, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized her term of service.  The Board concJuded 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