HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
X+					
X+					
				x	
				x	
X+					

ISSUES

A94.06

INDEX NUMBER	A67.05

1
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

19 Apr 2005	FD-2004-00488

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.

+ CHANGE REASON AND AUTHORITY TO SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

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

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ISJS COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

YES

x

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

- -- --

-	......... i;- TN:JTIAL)

TYPE GEN	X
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

No

MEMBER SITTING

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

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2004-00488	

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), with counsel AFB on 19 Apr 2005. The following witness also testified on the applicant's behalf: Mr.', applicant's personal friend.

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: Exhibit #5: Affidavit from
Exhibit #6: 2 Character reference letters

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief.
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety or inequity that would justify a change of discharge. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by the applicant, the Board finds the applicant's reason was too harsh and that authority for discharge should be changed.

ISSUE: Applicant contends that her discharge was "inequitable because it was based on one incident" and did not take into account the 3 years and 7 months of unblemished performance. The records indicated the applicant received one Article 15, with at least three specifications, one Letter of Counseling, and one Memorandum for Record for a missed medical appointment. The applicant was assigned to the 377th Comptroller Squadron, at Kirland AFB, New Mexico, with duties that included reviewing TDY travel voucher claims.  The critical act of misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge revolves around her submission of a claim for lodging expenses, along with a lost-receipt document, utilized by persons who have either misplaced or lost their proof of payment for authorized lodging. The record reflects the applicant shared quarters with a male individual, allegedly neither a boyfriend nor a family member (which is otherwise prohibited), for the duration of her TDY.  The applicant also claimed that she paid the individual	
for her lodging expenses.   A signed affidavit from the lessee of the quarters was submitted in evidence
before the discharge authority and the DRB, indicating the applicant indeed made financial restitution for lodging. Upon returning from her TDY location and filing the claim for reimbursement, the applicant's claim was audited, as is normal policy for member's of her organization. When confronted by her supervisory chain, the applicant confessed to her misdeeds, but indicated she had often given out lost-receipt forms to many customers in the performance of her duties, and found no harm in utilizing the document for herself (although regretfully in retrospect). In the applicant's case she was indeed attending an authorized TDY and was authorized to live in other than base quarters due to non-availability of on base lodging facilities. The Board considered the seriousness of the offense, as a finance official, her commander's expressed regret for her departure from the unit following her approval for cross-training, her demonstrated performance over 3 years and 7 months before (includes Airman of the Quarter) and following her discharge (now financial manager for a major corporation) and concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from the applicant's demonstrated work ethic and performance record for the years and months preceding her acts of misconduct and since her discharge. The DRB found the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant to be inappropriate.

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.

However, in view of the foregoing findings the Board finds the applicant's discharge was too harsh and that the overall quality of her service is more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. The applicant's reason for discharge should also be changed to Secretarial authority, under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief