AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAl\JE OF SERVICE	EMBER (LAST, FIRST 1\1IDDLE 11\"ITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

TYPE  GEN	X

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

MIN

RECORD REVIEW -'"·

,J,Cou,	-;g ;;:  NA.ME OF COUNSEL AND  OR ORGANIZATION YES	No
x

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

L   -•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

HON

x

x

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x
x

x

ISSUES

A94.0l A94.55

INDEX NUMBER

A67.09

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 ;'\IUMBER

18 Nov 2004	FD-2004-00298

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video-teleconference  with Randolph AFB TX.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

- - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - -;'-------1

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
l 535 COMMAl\"D DR,. EE WING. 3RD FLOOR ANDRE\\'S AFB, JI.ID  20762-7002

AFHQ FORl\1 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Prev1ous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00298	

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

The applicant appeared with counsel and testified before the Discharge Review Board  (DRB) via video­ teleconference from Randolph AFB, TX and Andrews AFB, MD.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing:

Exhibit 5: Letter from Appli cant	1..Augu.. s.t 1994
Exhibit 6: Memorandum fro	24 June 1994
Exhibit 7: Memorandum from	.	Undated Exhibit 8: Four Character Letters
Exhibit 9: Lamar University Transcript, Spring 1998 Exhibit 10: Las Vegas Police Report, 16 November 04 Exhibit 11: Federal Financial Report, 8 March 2002 w/ atch Exhibit 12: AAFES Letter, 26 July 2004
Exhibit 13: Cancelled Checks Exhibit 14: Credit Report
Exhibit 15: SAC Federal Credit Union Statement
Exhibit 16: AAFES Returned Check Voucher, 1 June 1994	•

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.

ISSUES:

Issue I . Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records show the applicant received an Article 15, and two Letters of Reprimand for her misconduct.  The applicant was sent to financial counseling and budgeting classes but failed to correct her misbehavior which consisted primarily of financial misconduct.  The ORB opined that through these administrative and counseling actions, the applicant had ample opportunity to change her negative behavior.  While the discharge quickly followed the rehabilitative efforts, this was due to the applicant's failure to take advantage of the rehabilitative
opportunity presented to her.  The Board concluded this was clearly indicative of a lack of rehabilitative potential in the applicant and that the decision to discharge the applicant was not unduly harsh.  Her lack of initiative and failure to have paid off her debts in full in the I 0 years after her discharge is further indication she was unsuited for further rehabilitative efforts.  Because 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.

Issue 2.  At the hearing the applicant contended that her discharge was improper because the Staff Judge Advocate's recommendation stated her misconduct had occurred over the course of a year, when in fact it lasted only a few months.  While the legal review does contain an erroneous assertion the misconduct had occurred over the course of a year, the true facts underlying the discharge were clearly stated in the legal review and the discharge case fi le.  The Board determined that this error did not constitute prejudicial error;	

i.e., there was not substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made.
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.
Attachment:
Examiner's Brief