AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD	
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE JNJTJAL)
·_'-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ :,
''	'	GRADE

AB	AFSN/SSAN
--------------.
'.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'.	
TYP•: GEN	I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW	
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIMTION Ot" COUNSEL	
YES	No			
	x			

MEMBER SITTING	von OF mE BOARD	
	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY	
'-' -----------------------------------'' '	'
'					x	
''	''
'	''
'					x	
''	''
'	''
'					x	
''	'''
'	''					x	
''	'''
'------------------------------------   '					x	
ISSUES		A94. 11 A92.21 A57.03 A00.29	INDEX NUMBER
A72.00
A60.00	EXHIBFfUUBMlT'Jlll> TO THE BOARD
''-,      ,	<";	
		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 SUBMITTl:lD Al TIME UF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE	
			TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE	
HEARING DATE

16 Nov 2006	CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00083			
APPLl\lA'NT'$ ISSVll AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL AR!l UISCUSSl!l.l ON THI!AT'.rACHllD AIR fORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONAUl	'
, , ,:: <iw< ·;

Case reviewed in 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 wi ll be made avai lable to the appl icant at the applicant's request.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	·
'' '''
-------------------------------------------------------------	·t ·-------&C·----------------------------- '·	
INDORSEMENT	.  •.	:   . ·.	DATE: 1111612006	
TO:
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742	FROM:
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1333 COMMAND DR, EE WING,JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFll, MD W762·7002	
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

CASE NUMBER

FD-2005-00083

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but was unable to appear and  testify  via  video  teleconference  between  Andrews  AFB,  MD  and  Travis  AFB,  CA  on 16 November  2006 due to an unanticipated  knee injury and surgery that took place on  15 November  2006. A non-personal appearance records review board was performed in her absence.

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, i.e., was based on a "short period of time" versus taking into consideration her full 61 months of service on active duty.  The records indicated the applicant received a General Court-Martial with three charges, to include: 1) failing to refrain from using her government charge card by obtaining approximately $2,900.00 in cash for personal use; 2) stealing about $3,600.00 from her unit's booster club fund; and 3) failing to pay a debt of $3,020.97 within the timeframes required.	The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and, as a result, the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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. 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 received numerous degrees and accolades for her job and community service. 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 term of service.

Issue 4.  The applicant cited her desire to receive an upgrade so that she's not limited in her ability to be accepted into a doctorate program in neuropsychology or receive future licensing and employment. The Board was sympathetic to the impact her current discharge may have on the applicant, but this is not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Ifthe applicant can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board.  If she should choose to exercise her right to a personal appearance hearing, the applicant should be prepared to provide the ORB with factual evidence of the inequity and any additional exemplary post-service accomplishments or contributions to the community she deem appropriate.

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