AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

NA:l1E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AIC
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER  SITTING

HON	GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

....----- ....----- ....----- ....----- ....---------------'-----1-----4------1-----1-----1
x
x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.0l

JJ'li"DEX NUMBER

A67.10

l	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

11 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00176

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.

------------------	---------)_ _ _ _ __;.:._ _ _ _ _.__0_ _ _____ _ _ _ _ __1._ _ _ _ _ _____ _"------- --------- -------.

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COL'NCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, lRD FLOOR
A:o!DREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

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

CASE NLTl\IBER

FD-2004-00176

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change her reenlistment code.

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, change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code 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: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, vacation of suspended punishment, four Letters of Reprimand, two Letters of Counseling, a Record of Individual Counseling, and had an Unfavorable Information File due to misconduct. Her infractions included at least six instances of failure to go or being late for work, twice being found at her place of offduty employment when she was supposed to be on duty or had called in sick, insubordinate conduct, and dereliction of duty. Applicant specifically felt her Article 15 was unjust and she was made an example of. The record review did not substantiate this contention and the Board found it without merit. The DRB opined that through the unit's extensive administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior and was unwilling or unable 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. The applicant cited her desire to return to military service as justification for upgrade. While the Board was sympathetic to the impact her reenlistment code was having on the applicant, this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety that would warrant an upgrade.

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