AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSNISSAN

AB
X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX 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

Hf.ARI:"jG  DATE	CASE NUMBER

17 Aug 2004	FD-2004-00212

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

-'--- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··----- ··--- r'	1

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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  NU1\1BER

FD-2004-00212	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the 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 ofreenlistment code are denied.

ISSUE l: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand, and two Letters of Counseling for financial irresponsibility, lying, and making a false official statement. The DRB 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. Applicant states that under current standards, she would not have received the type of discharge she did receive. This issue is without merit. These same incidents today would result in the same discharge characterization.

ISSUE 2.  Applicant claims that her roommate at the time stole some of her credit cards and checks from her room while she was away on vacation and that the roommate ran up her phone bill to over $1300.  She claims she reported this to the First Sergeant and Supervisor at the time and that they were no help because they said the debt was ultimately hers and there was no way to go after her once she had been discharged.  This issue is without merit.  There is nothing in the record to substantiate this issue.  And, the applicant waived her right to submit statements at the time of the discharge.  This would have been the time to tell the Commander just what had happened and tried to prove her case.   She submitted nothing.

ISSUE 3.  Applicant states that the debt that was incurred was resolved or paid by her and she had all of her debt paid before she was discharged from the military.  The board was glad to see the applicant took responsibility for her action.

ISSUE 4.  The applicant felt that she was treated unjustly by her squadron because she had no one to speak on her behalf.  She claims there was a written statement from her roommate signed by her supervisor and the roommates'  supervisor stating the things that she did and that it was put in her permanent record.   This issue is without merit.  There is nothing in the permanent record,
nor did this information surface at the time of discharge.

ISSUE 5.  Applicant contends that she was very naive and trusting when she first joined  the military and had no knowledge of how some people manipulated others.  This is not a matter of inequity or impropriety for the board.

ISSUE 6 applies to the applicant's post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized her term of service.

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