AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

Ill I   ••11	Lt

AIC

••111 II

TYPE GEN	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

"   NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

'

.--------------------------------------------
'
'

·---------------------------------------------

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92. 15 A94.01 A92.35 A94.05 A93.21 A93.09

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

04 Mar 2004	FD-2003-00459

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

':---

SAF/MRBR 550 C STREET RANDOLPH A

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	

FD2003-00459	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel at Andrews AFB, MD on March 4, 2004.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 6:  Character Statement from the Social and Security Committee of The Landing housing community dated December  15, 2003.
Exhibit 7: Character Statement from Ms. MMT dated January 5, 2004.

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

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of/changes ofreason and authority for discharge and change of RE code are denied.

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

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief.

Issues I - 4. Applicant infers that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters of recommendation and other accomplishments. The DRB also recognized the fact that the applicant had served over six years total service before the discharge was initiated, but concluded the applicant's misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her time in the Air Force. The Board further noted that the applicant was entitled to request an administrative discharge board, but declined that opportunity and submitted a conditional waiver of that right in return for receipt of a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of her service. The Board found the seriousness of applicant's willful misconduct offset the positive aspects of the applicant's otherwise acceptable duty performance.
The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reason which was its basis.

Issue 5 applies to the applicant's post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant has been a good citizen since her discharge. However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was suggested or disclosed in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized her term of service.

Issues 6, 9 and 10.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that her chain of command abused its authority in administratively discharging her.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for shoplifting a $340.00 Coach brand handbag from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service.  She was seen on the secure video system leaving the store with the handbag over her shoulder without having paid for it.  In her reply to the Article 15, member admitted stealing the purse because she had been admiring it for awhile but didn't have enough money to purchase it.  The Board concluded this misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.
Furthermore, member's final Enlisted Performance Report was an overall referral "2" that documented poor duty performance.  The DRB also noted the applicant was over 24 years of age when the discharge took	

;'
.--	-rC-AS_E_N_UM_-B-ER	---.

place and there was no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong. The Board opined the applicant was older than many service members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct. rlbe DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the misconduct.

Issues 7 and 8.  Applicant stated persona], medical, and financial probl ems impaired her ability to serve. However there are no indications that applicant's problems were unique or unusual compared to other service members, nor that she sought assistance from available agencies such as the chaplain, mental health clinic, or Family Support Center in dealing with her stresses.  And while it is understand able that a member with personal problems has additional stress, the Board did not find this to be of sufficient mitigation or extenuation to warrant upgrading her 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/change of reason for discharge and change of RE code, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief