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

'	'	AB

;----------------------	:·---------------

'   ----------------------- ''

'------------------''

TYPE  GEN	x	I	PERSONAL     APPEARANCE	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNSEL	NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION	ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER  SITTING	HON	GEN	UOTHC	OTHER	DENY
-----------------------------------	x
Lo
x
-
x

h
x
h
x
------------------------------------
ISSUES	A92.21	INDEX NUMBER	A66.00	EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
A93.01	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 SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

13 Nov 2006	FD-2005-00389
APPLICANT'.S ISSOB AND THE BOARJ>'.SDECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE

Case heard at Washington, D.C. via video-teleconference  with Travis AFB, California.

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.

...·, ---------------------------------       -----------------------------------'----------------------------------

'

'

..-:	'
''	'
'	'
''	''
-------------------------------------------I-N-D--O-R-S-E--M-E--N-T-------     =--------------------------------------- D·ATE:           11/13/2006
TO'	FROM,
SAF/MRBR	SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40

1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR

RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4 742	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-2005-00389	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The applicant appeared and testified without counsel before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) via video­ teleconference with Travis AFB, California and Andrews AFB on 13 November 2006.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge and change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the propriety of the discharge, and after a thorough review of the record and listening to the applicant's testimony, the Board was unable to identify any issues of propriety or equity that would justify  a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. Applicant requested a change of the reason for her discharge, a change of the service characterization and a change of the reenlistment code so that she could re-enter the military.  She based this request upon her immaturity at the time of her service.  The DRB recognized the applicant was only 17
years-old when she joined the Air Force and was 19 years-old when she was discharged.  However, there is no evidence she was too immature to appreciate the possible consequences of her actions or did not know right from wrong.  The Board noted that the vast majority of first-term members properly adhere to the Air Force's standards of conduct.  The DRB concluded that the characterization of the applicant's discharge was appropriate due to the egregious misconduct in which she engaged.  Her drug use, repeated under age drinking and 7-day absence without leave warrant the Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge she received.

Issue 2: The applicant also requested relief based upon her post-service activities. The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well, is engaged in public service and has a good job. However, no inequity or impropriety in her discharge was found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the applicant's misconduct during her term of service properly resulted in her discharge classification.

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