AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
...\;\I E OF SERVICE M EMBER (l,AST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN!SSAN

'·-

AMN -

TYPE   GEN	x	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSJ;J.	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANlZA TION OF COUNSEL YES ;	No
x

··----·

.,, :"i '1f11iili,'''i\'OTE OF THE BOARD  ' ,	, :W

1 :    :':'.t.    '	'	' '   '     .:

----	', :' i
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
x
x

ISSUES	A93.0l	INDEX NUMBER
A94.05

A94.09

'
I
x
I
x x

•/

EXHlEII'fSSlJBMITTED   TO  TH,plOAIW     i0:    .'! '	> '
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD	 	

A94.09	2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER  OF NOTIFJCA TION
4	BRlEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADD!TIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

1-JL\Rll'iG DATF;	CASF: NUMBF;R

14 Apr 2005	FD-2004-00463
APPLICANTS ISSUE AND THEJlOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIOAL ARE.DISCUSSED ON J:HE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DJSOMRGE REVIEW BOARD DECISION' AL RATIONALE•,, ,

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board 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.

---	---·--

,        INDORSEMENT	--	DATE:   4/14/2005 .•
--	·-·

TOo	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSOl'iNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW  BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH  AFB, TX 78150-4742	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-2004-00463	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB MD on 14 Apr 2005.

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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, six Letters of Reprimand, three Letters of Counseling, and four Letters of Admonislunent.  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 appropri ate.

Issue 2.  Applicant states that her discharge did not take into account the good things she did while in the service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by her performance reports, letters of recommendation  and other accomplishments.   They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty performance.  The Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which were the basis for this case.

Issue 3 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 tem1of 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.

Attacluuent: Examiner's Brief