AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
NAM E OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)	GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

f--------------------------------------:

·----------------.

'	:
-------------------------------------- ·

SRA

''	''

TYPE  UOTH

I	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD  REVIEW

 	C;Q-IJ,N, S_n_. -1 NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION o · COUNSEL
1
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD

MEMBER SITTING

HON	GEN

UOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

AOl.00 A95,00

INDEX NUMBER

A61.00

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
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 PERSON AL A l'l'b;ARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

07 Ju l 2006	FD-2005-00367
APl'LICi srssUE AND 1'HE80,'.$ DEClmwNA:U!fATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE
Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise appl icant 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 req uest.

I

_D

,.SF- IY!\E.	F? 1£1! .- - -:,c_ - .c..L:.- - - - - - _,a _ - - - - - -:·_ - - - - - - - .1.s!,g, I!l!t !I !!!-H1 _E_"'.,1.:, _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -,
''	''
---------------------------- ---------"iin'OlisiM:INT-------, , .-,. - -- ..-- ---------------------"iin:: 7/1112006

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150A742

FROM:

SF.CRETARY Of THE AIR FORCF. PERSONNi:L C:OLINCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDRi:WS 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-2005-00367	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRS) 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:

Issue 1. Applicant contends discharge was for one isolated incident.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15, a civilian conviction and three Letters of Counseling for misconduct.  The Article 15 stated the applicant was disorderly which conduct was prejudice to good order and discipline in the armed forces.  She was convicted of theft in the second degree by civilian authorities resulting in a court suspended imposition of sentence pursuant to a plea agreement.  The plea agreement resulted in applicant being placed on probation for 24 months.  The applicant was also cited on three separate occasions for traffic violations resulting in the receipt of Letters of Counseling.  The DRB opined that through these administrati ve 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 appropriate.

Issue 2.  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 term of service.

Issue 3.  The applicant stated she was told her discharge would automatically be upgraded after 5 years of discharge.	While a discharge may be upgraded, the upgrade is by no means automatic.  A discharge is upgraded only if the applicant and the DRB can establish an inequity or impropriety took place at the time of discharge.  In this case, none was found, so the Board denied the appeal.

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