AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TVPE GEN

YES	No
x

NAME>'OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

---- - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - -	------------f-----+----+----+----+	1
x
x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.ll A93.ll A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

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 APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

16 Sep 2004	FD-2004-00206

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.

-----------------	------ -----4".J---- "-	-"-'-----------------------------------------------,
''
''
·--	------- ··----- ··---- ---------·'

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW HOARD 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-2004-00206	

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.

ISSUES:

Issue 1. Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and that she was singled out.  The records indicated the applicant received two Articles 15, three Letters of Reprimand, and two tickets for speeding on base. Her other infractions included being late for a mandatory Career Development Course study session, being 90 days delinquent on her base club account, failing to pay a deficiency judgment for a repossessed car, failing to obey a direct order, and failing to pay her rent, as well as late fees and returned check fees on a separate rent debt.  Although member was referred to the Personal Financial Management Program, her financial misconduct continued afterward.  Member also had two referral Enlisted Performance Reports that chronicled her on-going financial problems.  Applicant now claims that she had disclosed pre-service financial difficulties to her recruiter, however none of her pre-service documentation, Personnel Security Questionnaire, or the recruiter's applicant history form bears this out.  The DRB opined that through the unit's several administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior but 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 was appropriate.

Issue 2.  The applicant cited her desire to receive the G.I. Bill benefits as justification for upgrade.  The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, she signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on June 23, 2000) that she understood she must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational  entitlements.  The Board was sympathetic to the impact the loss of these benefits was having on the  applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which 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