AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
GRADE

SRA
x	RECORD REVH:W

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN

UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A94.05

INDEX NUMBER

A70.00

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

01 Feb 2005	FD-2004-00408

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

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD lSJS 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-2004-00408	

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.

ISSUE:  Applicant does not contest her discharge.  She is now a member of the RI ARNO and would like to become a full-time AGR.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go and elected to be discharged in lieu of a court martial for stealing merchandise from the BX on five separate occasions.  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 the DRB should take into account the good things she has accomplished since she has been a member of the Army National Guard.  Although the applicant appears to be doing very well in the Army Guard, this is not a reason to change the characterization of her discharge from when she was in the Air Force.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

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