AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE

GRADE

AMN
x

AFSN/SSAN
W U It
RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATJON

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
.--------------------------------	x
x x
x x

ISSUES

A92.15

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

A93.11	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	CASE NUMBER

27 Feb 2004	FD-2003-00508

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.

__________________

______2_____,d_ /J/_ _ _ ·-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --_.'1..IL-'.A- _ _d_ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'	'--

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-2003-00508	

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.

Issue 1. Applicant infers discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles  15, three Letters of Reprimand, a Letter of Counseling, three Records of Individual Counseling and had an Unfavorable Information File for misconduct.  Her infractions included financial irresponsibility, allowing an unauthorized civilian to reside in her dormitory room, being late for duty, missing a mandatory formation, unsatisfactory progress on the Weight Management Program, falsely pretending to be someone she wasn't in order to fraudulently obtain long distance telephone services valuing more than $100.00, and misusing her government travel card.  Applicant notes she was having financial difficulties and requested assistance from the Family Support Center and First Sergeant; she contends she received no help.  The record shows member participated in the financial counseling program in 1994 and again in 1997 and was making progress with her debts.  Additionally, her First Sergeant recommended she receive financial assistance from the Air Force Aid Society in 1994 and 1995.  The DRB opined that through these administrative and rehabilitative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior and was unable or unwilling to do so.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The ORB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, all three of which were rated an overall "3."  These reports documented repeated counseling for financial irresponsibility as well as negative attitude and problems with applicant's weight.  The Board found the seriousness of applicant's willful misconduct and otherwise mediocre performance  offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.   The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were its basis.

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