'	AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
r	NAME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  iLAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE  GEN

Al C
I	PERSONAL APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

7 PST

1-c_ouNS_EL -l NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
YES	No
x

,\DDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING
------------------------------------------

.

. .	·.

HON	GEN	UOTJ-IC

OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

------------------------------------------

lSSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A49.00

1	ORDER APPOINTING Tl-IE 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

11 May 2004	FD-2004-00066

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		
TO;	
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM;	
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE l'ERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ISJS COMMAND DR, EE Wll'IG, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7()02	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUi\1BER

FD-2004-00066	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) 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.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Vacation action under the UCMJ and a Letter of Reprimand, all for financial irresponsibility. Member was offered and attended a financial management class after the first Article 15. The ORB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to  change her negative behavior.   The Board  concluded  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