AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

IITIAI.)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

!TYPE GEN	x

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	RECORD  REVrnw

YES	No
x

NAME OF COUNst.L AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZ.A TION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER S!ITING

x x x x x

ISSlltS

A94.0S

INDEX NUMBER

A67.SO

'--"--O'-RDER APP=OINT!N=O-TH-E BOARD-----------

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION

IIJ:ARING DATE

CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00470

Case heard at Andrews AFB, Maryland.

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 appl icant's request.

TO'

SAf /MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 4-0
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

FROM:

SECRETARY OF TIII AIR FORCE PERSONNEi. COUNOL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVll-W BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, lRD FLOOR A'.'fDREWS AFB, MD 20?6:Z..7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

 	

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00470	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge.

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD on 5 April, 2005.

There were no witnesses or additional  exhibits submitted at the hearing. The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of the reason and authority for discharge are denied.

ISSUE: Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because the underlying disciplinary actions and the discharge were too harsh and her military service, on balance, was honorable. The applicant also cited her desire to receive G.l. Bill educational benefits. The records indicated the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand and two nonjudicial punishment actions under Article 15, UCMJ. The Board concluded the disciplinary actions for her misconduct were not harsh and her misconduct 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