AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD HEARING  RECORD

'     NAM E OF SERVJC  - MEMBER  (LAST, flRST MIDDLE  INITIAU
'' · ....	.

'x

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AMN
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANI7..ATION OF COllNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTI IC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A92.37

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

2

1		ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
1
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBM ITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

01 Sep 2004

FD-2004-00122

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 subm it an application to the AFBCMR.

SAF/MRRR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH Al'B, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY  OF THE AIR FORCE  rERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EF. WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FOR M 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

than honrable is warranted when the behavior constitutes a significant departure from standards expected of airmen. There is no evidence that the discharge  was inequitable or improper. The Board finds the applicant's discharge to be appropriate and in accordance with Air Force Policy.

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.

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOA RD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00122	

GENERA L: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to general, to change the reason and authority for her discharge, and to change her reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board 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, change of reason and authority for the discharge, and change of reenlistment code are 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.

ISSUES: Applicant was discharged for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. Member had an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and a Letter of Counseling. These actions documented being late for work, missing a mandatory formation, and grand larceny by fraud of an amount between $800.00 and
$1300.00 from Sears, for which she was arrested by local police. At the time of the discharge action, member consulted counsel and waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf. The record reflects member and a civilian friend who was a Sears employee purposely conspired to credit monies to member's Discover Credit card account as if she had made a payment on the balance when in fact she had not provided the funds with which to make a payment. Although this conduct could have been tried in civilian court, it was also subject to trial by military court-martial and a punitive discharge. Yet, her chain of command chose to administer punishment via Article 15 instead. The Board found that applicant committed a serious offense that does not warrant a characterization of honorable, which is only appropriate when the member's service has been so meritorious that any other characterization would  clearly be inappropriate. Applicant was age 22 when her misconduct occurred, and there is no evidence that she was immature and did not know right from wrong. The discharge regulations clearly gave her chain of command authority to recommend administratively discharging her based on unsuitability for further military service as a result of her serious misconduct. Pacts and circumstances are different in each action and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, a commander must consider the seriousness of the misconduct and how a member's retention might affect good order, discipline, and morale, not just the member's past record of service or rehabilitative potential. They must focus on conduct during the current enlistment, and also consider factors such as the member's age, length of service, grade, aptitude, and the standards of acceptable conduct and performance. The regulation provides for circumstances wherein a single incident of misconduct may provide the basis for characterizing service, and characterization less