AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

•/'<AME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

AlC		_.  X	RECORD REVIEW

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

SSUES

A93.0I

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A67. 10

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY
x x x
x x

A93.07	I	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

08 Jan 2004

CASE NUMBER

FD-2003-00466

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.

·············-	---J...··"'·····.A/J.............................................................,

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET	ST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78I50-4742

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 153! CO:MMAND DR. EE WING, JRD fLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762- 7002

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL R<\TIONALE	CASE NU:\1BER

FD-2003-00466	

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  nor that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Applicant received a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.   She had four Letters of Reprimand and an Article 15. Her miscond uct included two incidents of failure to go, possession of a fraudulent military identification card, making a false official statement, failing to obey an order to provide an adequate child care plan, unwillingness to complete her Career Development Course in a timely manner, and numerous instances of failing to maintain her government quarters which resulted in her termination
from base housing.  Member also had an Unfavorable Information File and was placed on the Control Roster in an effort to rehabilitate her.  Her unit advised her of the base support agencies available to her and made her accessible to them, but she nevertheless failed to correct her behavior.  Applicant now contends her problem were due to immaturity and marital strife.   The DRB noted that member participated in a relationship enhancement class for a brief period but then discontinued participation.   She and her spouse were also the subject of a Family Advocacy Program case spanning an I !-month period that was left unresolved when she was discharged.  The DRB noted applicant was 21 years old when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence she was immature or did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was as old as the vast majority of first-term members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB also opined that through the unit's numerous administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  The Board concluded her
misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was therefore found to be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural a nd substantive r equirements o f t he d ischarge r egulation a nd w as w ithin t he d iscretion o f t he 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