AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
N.\ME  OF SERVICE MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST    llDDLE  IN ITIAL)	GRADE	AFSJ\"/SSAN
•'1111111•·	A B	••n•·• Ill
TYPE   GEN	x	I	PERSON AL APPEAR A NCE	I	RECORD   REVIEW
-COUNSEL	NAMF. OF COU!'>SEL  AND  OR  ORGANIZATION	..\DDRESS  AND  OR ORGANIZATION   OF cou••SEL
'k'ES	'"
x
', •· ..	VOTE OF l'HE BOARJj  ·
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
- --··----- ··----	x
-.
x
r.	•
x
x
-	x
---..      .............................

ISSUES	A93.0J	IN DEX  U:O.IBER	A67.09

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED r()THE BOARD
I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCllARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL  EXH !BITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

, ·

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

12 Oct 2004	FD-2004-00248

'    -	-	-	-	-

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

-   -          -	-- -   -

-   .- -     - ---

, , ·.····	.. •·

APJ'>LICAh'T:s-ISSUE'AND TIIE BOP.RD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DrSCUSSED ON-THE ATTACHED AJR fO_llCE D1SGHARGE REVIEW BOARD-DEC1SJONAL,RATIONALE
"	"	"

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

..----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	..

t ..

:..-----

,O.g!':J  94

-------------------------------------- ------ ---- ---- -- ---!·-------------------- -- -- ---- ------ -- - :
·----- --·     .	. .	.	.	IN,O()R/'l\OTI!'.j'Ji.    · .	.	.·.   . ·  ..  .. .. ... ·.   . .·.···.  .
TO:	.FROM:
SAI/r..1RBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSOl'"i'iF:L COUNCIL
AJR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND OR, EE WING, 3RD FWOR

RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 781 50-4742	ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

A FHQ FORM 0-2077, J AN 00	(EF-V2)	Previ ous ed iti on \Vil\ be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NU!\'IBER

FD-2004-00248	

GENERAL:   The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and for change of reenlistment code.

The applicant was offered and was scheduled for a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but she called and cancelled her personal appearance. Despite efforts to contact her, she has not responded to messages left on her answering machine to set a new hearing date, therefore this case is treated as a non-personal appearance case.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of 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.

ISSUE:

Issue.  The Applicant contends that the Air Force should give her a second chance and blames her immaturity and stupidity for her misdeeds during her enlistment.  She is quite candid about her misbehavior and does not claim the discharge was inequitable or improper.  She details the events in her life which have forced her to mature and claims she is now prepared to work hard and obey the rules.  The DRB recognized the applicant was 20 years of age when the discharge took place.  However, there is no evidence she did not know right from wrong.  The Board opined the applicant was older than the vast majority of first-term
members who properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  While the DRB is sympathetic to her troubles and wishes her every success in her endeavors in the civilian community, the DRB cannot conclude that the Applicant's discharge was improper or inequitable.  She received an Article 15 for misconduct and committed further misconduct resulting in the vacation of a suspension reduction in grade to Airman Basic.
She recei ved three Letters of Reprimand and two Letters of Counseling, and admits to even more misconduct which is not documented in her record.

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